On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:49:48PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > In any case, you have two possibilities - explicit unexport triggering that
> > dput(), etc. and umount(2) triggering the same. Whoever comes second gets
> > to wait until it's done. So why not make the point where we commit to
> > unexporting the sucker the place where we do pin_kill()? And have ->kill()
> > of that thing prevent appearance of new entries, then wait for them to run
> > down. Which is precisely the same thing you want to happen on umount...
>
> The "wait for them to run down" part is the sticking point. We don't
> have any easy way to wait for there to be no more references, so I'd
> really like to use the waiting that pin_kill() already does.
> I want the ->kill function to just unhash the cache entry, and then
> wait for pin_delete() to be called.
pin_remove, presumably?
> The final 'put' on the cache entry calls dput on the dentry and then
> pin_remove().
>
> The ->kill function can wait for that to happen by calling pin_kill().
> I guess there is no real need for a return value from pin_remove().
>
> So
> static void expkey_pin_kill(struct fs_pin *pin)
> {
> struct svc_expkey *key = container_of(pin, ....);
>
> cache_delete_entry(key->cd, &key->h);
... and another CPU drops the last reference, freeing the sucker.
> pin_kill(&key->ek_pin); /* recursive call will wait for
> * pin_delete() to be called */
... oopsing on the spot.
--
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
