On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:03:00AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Well... unlazy_walk() is always followed by terminate_walk() very shortly,
> but there's a minor problem - terminate_walk() uses "are we in RCU
> mode?" for two things:
> a) do we need to do path_put() here?
> b) do we need to unlock?
> If you introduce the third case ("no need to do unlock and no need to
> do path_put()"), we'd better decide how to check for that case...
>
> I suspect that minimal variant would be along the lines of
> * have unlazy_walk() slap NULL into ->path.mnt on error, clear
> LOOKUP_RCU and unlock
> * have terminate_walk() check ->path.mnt before doing path_put()
> in !RCU case
> * in do_last() replace bool got_write with struct vfsmount *got_write,
> storing the reference to vfsmount we'd fed to mnt_want_write().
> And use its value when we call mnt_put_write() in there...
>
> I'll put together a commit like that on top of what I was going to push
> into public queues tonight; give me about half an hour, OK?
See the last commit in vfs.git#for-next (38373e1).
--
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
