On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:37:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It's not that bad, actually; I think the variant I've pushed right now > > (vfs.git#for-next, head at f5e1dd34561e0fb06400b378d595198918833021) should > > be doing the right thing. It ought to cover everything in your branch > > in -next from "fs: bump inode and dentry counters to long" on to the > > end of queue. > > >From a quick look, this looks pretty broken: > > if (list_lru_add(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru, &dentry->d_lru)) > this_cpu_inc(nr_dentry_unused); > dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_LRU_LIST; > > because if that list_lru_add() can fail, then we shouldn't set the > DCACHE_LRU_LIST bit either. list_lru_add() can fail if it's already on the list; leaving the counter alone should've been conditional on that, setting the flag - no. Said that, it probably should be WARN_ON(!...); this_cpu_inc(); ... |= ...; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
