On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 22:51 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:12:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Note that extra references to vfsmount do not prevent umount from
> > removing the sucker from the tree and dropping the preexisting reference
> > to it. umount -l will do that just fine.
> >
> > This thing is called as ->rpc_release(); do we have anything
> > protecting the issuer of rpc_run_task() from being rmmod'ed before (or
> > during) the call of ->rpc_release()?
>
> Ah, I see... All these suckers end up running from rpc_task_free(),
> scheduled via nfsiod_workqueue. Reference to vfsmount or superblock
> (in case of async_unlink; async close should also use nfs_sb_{,de}active()
> instead of playing with vfsmounts, BTW) pins the module down until we
It is fairly trivial to define a 'struct nfs_path' that takes a
reference to the dentry and a reference to the super block if you'd
prefer that we get rid of the 'struct path' in nfs_open_context.
> are into the ->rpc_release() in question. And rmmod nfd done after
> that point will wait in destroy_workqueue() called by nfsiod_stop().
>
> Subtle and worth documenting explicitly, IMO...
The same thing is true for the sunrpc module: the rmmod sunrpc will wait
in the destroy_workqueue() for rpciod until all the remaining
asynchronous rpc tasks are done. That is documented in the changelog, at
least, but I agree that we can add a few comments in the code too.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
