On 14.05.2012 12:40, Marco Stornelli wrote: > 2012/5/14 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>: >> On Sun 13-05-12 15:44:33, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >>> AFFS code preallocates several blocks as an optimisation. Unfortunately >>> it's not protected by lock so the same blocks may end up allocated twice. >>> Here is a fix. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko <phcoder@xxxxxxxxx> >> The patch looks good to me now. Thanks! You can add: >> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> >> >> Al, will you merge this patch through your tree? AFFS does not seem to >> have a maintainer so you are a default fallback... >> >> Honza >> > > I don't know the AFFS code, so only a question. Instead to use a spin > lock, I think we can use a simple mutex. Or is the spin lock > mandatory? My first version used mutex. But then Jan suggested that since the critical section is very short and doesn't contain any instructions which might sleep, it's better for performance to use a spin lock. -- Regards Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
