On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:07:06AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Friday November 30, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > I came across this because I've been making changes to XFS to avoid the
> > inode hash, and I've found that I need to remove the inode from the
> > dirty list when setting I_WILL_FREE to avoid this race. I can't see
> > how this race is avoided when inodes are hashed, so I'm wondering
> > if we've just been lucky or there's something that I'm missing that
> > means the above does not occur.
>
> Looking at inode.c in 2.6.23-mm1, in generic_forget_inode, I see code:
>
> if (!hlist_unhashed(&inode->i_hash)) {
> if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY|I_SYNC)))
> list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
>
> so it looks to me like:
> If the inode is hashed and dirty, then move it (off the s_dirty
> list) to inode_unused.
That check is for if the inode is _not_ dirty or being sync, right?
Or have I just not had enough coffee this morning?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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]
