On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 19:37 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > krealloc would probably be more efficient and possible
> > readable as likely there's already padding in the original
> > allocation.
>
> The problem is if krealloc() fails: you've lost all those pointers to things
> you then need to free.
Huh? How could that happen?
krealloc must always use a temporary.
If krealloc returns NULL, the original allocation is kept.
> > Are there no locking constraints?
>
> Generally, no, not until you do the ->mount() op. Also remounting needs a
> lock, but that's already done with the sb->s_umount lock.
>
> However, that said, if you do:
>
> fd = fsopen("foofs");
> write(fd, "o foo=bar", ...);
> fsmount(fd, "/foo");
>
> then the fsmount() and write() calls have to lock against other fsmount() and
> write() calls. I use the inode lock for this. [Note that it probably should
> be interruptible rather than just killable, but there's no primitive for that
> as yet].
>
> David
--
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
