On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 01:39:34PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> It would be nice if pin_kill() would check ->done again after calling p->kill.
> e.g.
>
> diff --git a/fs/fs_pin.c b/fs/fs_pin.c
> index 611b5408f6ec..c2ef5c9d4c0d 100644
> --- a/fs/fs_pin.c
> +++ b/fs/fs_pin.c
> @@ -47,7 +47,9 @@ void pin_kill(struct fs_pin *p)
> spin_unlock_irq(&p->wait.lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> p->kill(p);
> - return;
> + if (p->done > 0)
> + return;
> + spin_lock_irq(&p->wait.lock);
> }
> if (p->done > 0) {
> spin_unlock_irq(&p->wait.lock);
>
> I think that would close the last gap, without needing extra work
> items and completion in the nfsd code.
>
> Al: would you be OK with that change to pin_kill?
Hell, no. Intended use is to have ->kill() free the damn thing, period.
This code is very careful about how it waits in the "found it before
->kill() has removed all pointers leading to that object" case. No go.
This change would break all existing users, with arseloads of extra
complications for no good reason whatsoever.
And frankly, I'm still not convinced that fs_pin is a good match for the
problem here - I'm not saying it's impossible to produce an fs_pin-based
solution (and I hadn't reviewed the latest iteration yet), but attempts so
far didn't look particularly promising.
--
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
