Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:12:39 -0700 | Subject | Re: kernel BUG at fs/dcache.c:648! with v3.11-7890-ge5c832d | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > I do. What we need on the second pass (one where we currently > take seq_writelock()) is exclusion against writers; nothing we are > doing is worth disturbing the readers - we don't change any data > structures. And simple grabbing the spinlock, without touching the > sequence number would achieve exactly that. Writers will have to > wait and won't be able to disturb us, readers won't notice anything > happening. So yes, this extra primitive does make sense here.
Ahh. Yes, as a fallback from the reader-side sequence lock that makes perfect sense..
Linus
| |