Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:54:58 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UDF: fix deadlock on inode being dropped |
| |
[Jan Kara - Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:36:07AM +0200] | Hi Cyrill! | | On Wed 06-06-07 21:53:51, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | > This patch prevents from deadlock on inode being dropped. | > The deadlock is caused by inderect call of mark_inode_dirty() | > within udf_drop_inode() but inode lock is already kept | > by the kernel. So moving code from udf_drop_inode() to | > udf_delete_inode() we save its functionality and avoid | > deadlock. | The patch is wrong. You cannot truncate the extent just in delete_inode. | That would lead to inodes with untruncated last extent on disk after | unmounting, which is forbidden in the specification. You need to truncate | the last extent whenever inode is being removed from memory or something | like that... I'm already thinking how to do it and avoid calling | mark_inode_dirty()... | | | Honza | -- | Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> | SuSE CR Labs |
Arh, thanks... Jan, actually the reason I've moved the code into 'delete' section was that I found no reasonable difference for our case between 'drop' and 'delete'. Moreover, by seeing into VFS code the only diff between 'drop' and 'delete' is that inside generic_delete_inode() a few inode structure elements are being destroyed and then our udf_drop_inode is called. So assuming, that you're right in drop_inode I've code just moved to 'delete' section.
Cyrill
- 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/
| |