Re: [PATCH 2/3] reiser4: block_alloc: sanitize grab_enabled modifications.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday 20 October 2014 at 13:43:50, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:	
> On Saturday 18 October 2014 at 19:47:29, Edward Shishkin wrote:	
> > On 08/18/2014 04:14 PM, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> > > - move all grab_enabled checks and modifications into reiser4_grab_space();
> > > - only disable grab if not BA_FORCE;
> > > - do not re-enable grab before doing second attempt in BA_CAN_COMMIT sequence
> > >    (feels hackish and is unneeded after the first change).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx100@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   fs/reiser4/block_alloc.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
> > >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/reiser4/block_alloc.c b/fs/reiser4/block_alloc.c
> > > index 7f9f910..a30f7b9 100644
> > > --- a/fs/reiser4/block_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/fs/reiser4/block_alloc.c
> > > @@ -270,12 +270,6 @@ reiser4_grab(reiser4_context * ctx, __u64 count, reiser4_ba_flags_t flags)
> > >   
> > >   	assert("vs-1276", ctx == get_current_context());
> > >   
> > > -	/* Do not grab anything on ro-mounted fs. */
> > > -	if (rofs_super(ctx->super)) {
> > > -		ctx->grab_enabled = 0;
> > > -		return 0;
> > > -	}
> > > -
> > >   	sbinfo = get_super_private(ctx->super);
> > >   
> > >   	spin_lock_reiser4_super(sbinfo);
> > > @@ -300,9 +294,6 @@ reiser4_grab(reiser4_context * ctx, __u64 count, reiser4_ba_flags_t flags)
> > >   
> > >   	assert("nikita-2986", reiser4_check_block_counters(ctx->super));
> > >   
> > > -	/* disable grab space in current context */
> > > -	ctx->grab_enabled = 0;
> > > -
> > >   unlock_and_ret:
> > >   	spin_unlock_reiser4_super(sbinfo);
> > >   
> > > @@ -321,6 +312,12 @@ int reiser4_grab_space(__u64 count, reiser4_ba_flags_t flags)
> > >   	if (!(flags & BA_FORCE) && !is_grab_enabled(ctx))
> > >   		return 0;
> > >   
> > > +	/* Do not grab anything on ro-mounted fs. */
> > > +	if (rofs_super(ctx->super)) {
> > > +		ctx->grab_enabled = 0;
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > >   	ret = reiser4_grab(ctx, count, flags);
> > >   	if (ret == -ENOSPC) {
> > >   
> > > @@ -328,10 +325,15 @@ int reiser4_grab_space(__u64 count, reiser4_ba_flags_t flags)
> > >   		   present */
> > >   		if (flags & BA_CAN_COMMIT) {
> > >   			txnmgr_force_commit_all(ctx->super, 0);
> > > -			ctx->grab_enabled = 1;
> > >   			ret = reiser4_grab(ctx, count, flags);
> > >   		}
> > >   	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (!(flags & BA_FORCE) && (ret == 0)) {
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm, but we disabled it unconditionally in reiser4_grab().
> > Not sure, if this is equivalent...
> 
> Yes, you are right. I can't recall any particular justification for this
> change...

I've apparently "rediscovered" the justification. See my response to
PATCHv2 2/3...

-- 
Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /

> so it should probably say
> 
>     if (ret == 0) {
> 
> > > +		/* disable grab space in current context */
> > > +		ctx->grab_enabled = 0;
> > > +	}
> > 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux File System Development]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Ext4 Filesystem]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux