On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Mike Marshall wrote: > I'm about to leave for the day... > > I haven't found any problems with the GFP_KERNEL allocations that > Al warned me about... that doesn't mean there aren't any... *IF* you have nothing that would require locks in any of the pathways related to memory pressure (and can guarantee that no such thing will appear), GFP_KERNEL should be OK. Still, doing that under the system-wide mutex taken whenever you need to send a request looks like a Bad Idea(tm) - too easy to introduce such deadlocks on subsequent changes. > I'm using copy_page_to_iter in my new branch as Al suggested. I've > changed the code quite a bit from any samples I've posted, there were > regressions with it. I finally stole some code from > cifs/file.c/cifs_readdata_to_iov > and everything works... but I'm not happy with it yet... Linus once posted > a message to the effect that "you don't fix bugs by thrashing around until > stuff seems to work, you fix them by doing the right thing on purpose..." > and I'm working towards that end... Could you tell where does the current code live? What's in -next appears to be unchanged... BTW, as for passing all your tests... Do those include fuzzing it by misbehaving server? And getdents() from a directory that has a bunch of long names *and* a short one in the very end looks like it would misbehave even on correctly working server... -- 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
