On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:07:01PM -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 13:43 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> ..
> >
> > > 5) ext3_write_end:
> > > Before write_begin/write_end patch set we have folowing locking
> > > order:
> > > stop_journal(handle);
> > > unlock_page(page);
> > > But now order is oposite:
> > > unlock_page(page);
> > > stop_journal(handle);
> > > Can we got any race condition now? I'm not sure is it actual problem,
> > > may be somebody cant describe this.
> >
> > Can we just change it to the original order? That would seem to be
> > safest unless one of the ext3 devs explicitly acks it.
>
> It would be nice to go back to original order, but its not that
> simple with current structure of the code. With Nick's patches
> unlock_page() happens in generic_write_end(). journal_stop()
> needs to happen after generic_write_end(). :(
Well we could use block_write_end?
> Mingming, can you take a look at the current & proposed order ?
> I ran into bunch of races when I tried to change the order for
> ->writepages() support earlier :(
OK, it sounds like we probably want to revert to the original
order at least for this patchset. If the new order is proven
safe then that could be introduced later to simplify things...
Thanks,
Nick
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
