Reported-by: Vitaliy Gusev<gusev.vitaliy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peng Tao<peng_tao@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index 8c77039..da7c20c 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -5964,6 +5964,7 @@ static void nfs4_layoutcommit_release(void
*calldata)
struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg, *tmp;
pnfs_cleanup_layoutcommit(data);
+ spin_lock(&data->args.inode->i_lock);
I think lock over list_del_init(&lseg->pls_lc_list) is enough, because
I put the spinlock outside of the loop because the critical section is
short enough and it should be faster than grabbing/dropping the inode
lock for every entry in the list, agree?
Yes, you are right.
Looked again I saw that issue is not so bad as seems.
Really, what is result of this issue? Only that lseg is in
data->lseg_list, but without set NFS_LSEG_LAYOUTCOMMIT. The put_lseg is
called correctly at nfs4_layoutcommit_release. So there is no any bug.
--
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
