On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 08:13:06PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Which is fsck-all protection, since then you proceed to do a lot of > blocking operations. Now, lock_super() down in balloc.c _might_ be > enough, but I wouldn't bet on that. There is still leak of proper locking model for inode's metadata, for example we don't lock/unlock buffer_head when check if we've already allocated block or not, so lock_kernel still necessary. -- /Evgeniy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Evgeniy Dushistov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- Next by Date: Re: LibPATA/ATA Errors Continue - Will there be a fix for this?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/5]: ufs: missed brelse and wrong baseblk
- Index(es):
 |