On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:36:24 +0100 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:31:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:27:34 +0100 > > Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:25:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > A neater implementation might be to add a kmem_cache* argument to > > > > unregister_filesystem(). If that is non-NULL, unregister_filesystem() > > > > does the rcu_barrier() and destroys the cache. That way we get to > > > > delete (rather than add) a bunch of code from all filesystems and new > > > > and out-of-tree filesystems cannot forget to perform the rcu_barrier(). > > > > > > There's often enough more than one cache, so that one is no-go. > > > > kmem_cache** ;) > > > > Which filesystems have multiple inode caches? > > inodes are not the only things that get caches of their own... Yes, but other random non-inode caches do not get rcu requirements secretly forced upon them by the vfs so don't need rcu_barrier() prior to their destruction? > BTW, Kirill, would you mind not cross-posting to that many lists ever again? I dunno, I like all those little messages - it makes me feel important. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
