On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 04:35:23 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 07:32:14AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > So, you're correct that we never take an fi_access reference for O_RDWR, > > which is why the array doesn't have a slot for it: > > > > atomic_t fi_access[2]; > > > > ...it's tracked by the union of the O_RDONLY and O_WRONLY counters. > > Which will be racy as long we try to use an atomic_t and not a proper > lock over access to all of fi_access. > gets are always done with the lock held. puts do an atomic_dec_and_lock or are done with the lock held. I don't see how that's racy... > I'm still trying to understand why we even need fi_access and can't just > use the file references directly, though. > -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
