lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ 36/71] ext4: lock i_mutex when truncating orphan inodes
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 04:46:16PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 06:07:11PM -0200, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:54:33PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> > >
> > > commit 721e3eba21e43532e438652dd8f1fcdfce3187e7 upstream.
> > >
> > > Commit c278531d39 added a warning when ext4_flush_unwritten_io() is
> > > called without i_mutex being taken. It had previously not been taken
> > > during orphan cleanup since races weren't possible at that point in
> > > the mount process, but as a result of this c278531d39, we will now see
> > > a kernel WARN_ON in this case. Take the i_mutex in
> > > ext4_orphan_cleanup() to suppress this warning.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
> > > Reviewed-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >
> > By the description and looking at commit c278531d39, this change isn't
> > needed for 3.0 or 3.4 kernels (anything <= 3.6), they don't contain
> > commit c278531d39.
>
> Ah, good catch. Should this be reverted from 3.0 and 3.4?

I judge it as unecessary from what I saw so far, can ext4 developers
and/or people in Cc confirm? It should be harmless, only consequence is
an uneeded lock being taken now in 3.0/3.4

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>

--
[]'s
Herton


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-18 05:21    [W:0.099 / U:2.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site