lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-31 19:49    [W:0.161 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site