On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:48 AM, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:43:21PM +0800, zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> --- a/fs/hot_tracking.c
>> +++ b/fs/hot_tracking.c
>> @@ -107,3 +189,38 @@ err:
>> kmem_cache_destroy(hot_inode_item_cachep);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hot_cache_init);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Initialize the data structures for hot data tracking.
>> + */
>> +int hot_track_init(struct super_block *sb)
>> +{
>> + struct hot_info *root;
>> + int ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + root = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hot_info), GFP_NOFS);
>> + if (!root) {
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Failed to malloc memory for "
>> + "hot_info\n", __func__);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + hot_inode_tree_init(root);
>
> This function is supposed to be called from the filesystem init, please
> add a sanity check that would catch multiple initialization attempts.
Good catch, thanks. Done.
>
>> +
>> + sb->s_hot_root = root;
>> +
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Turning on hot data tracking\n");
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hot_track_init);
>> +
>> +void hot_track_exit(struct super_block *sb)
>> +{
>> + struct hot_info *root = sb->s_hot_root;
>
> another sanity check to catch the opposite.
ditto.
>
> Why? The option is parsed and enabled from the filesystems, due to
> unexpected bugs eg with remounting or incorrectly handled error paths,
> vfs layer should IMHO rather warn than crash.
thanks for your expalaination.
>
>> +
>> + hot_inode_tree_exit(root);
>> + sb->s_hot_root = NULL;
>> + kfree(root);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hot_track_exit);
>
>
> david
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
--
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
