Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:

> Eric, could you please try the following:
>
> 1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
>
> 	DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock);
>
> 2) replace in udf_drop_inode()
>
> 	kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock);
> 	kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock);
>
> I'm not sure if it help but you may try ;)
>
> 		Cyrill

I'm sure it'll avoid the deadlock but....

Any sense of what the BKL is actually trying to protect in this case?

Is it really only trying to prevent concurrent prealloc-discarders, or 
is there more?

-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/