| From | Vivek Goyal <> | Subject | [PATCH 03/52] fuse: rely on mutex_unlock() barrier instead of fput() | Date | Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:12:29 -0500 |
| |
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
fput() will be moved out of this function in a later patch, so we cannot rely on it as the memory barrier for ensuring file->private_data = fud is visible.
Luckily there is a mutex_unlock() right before fput() which provides the same effect.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/inode.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c index 0b94b23b02d4..d08cd8bf7705 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c @@ -1198,12 +1198,11 @@ static int fuse_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) list_add_tail(&fc->entry, &fuse_conn_list); sb->s_root = root_dentry; file->private_data = fud; - mutex_unlock(&fuse_mutex); /* - * atomic_dec_and_test() in fput() provides the necessary - * memory barrier for file->private_data to be visible on all - * CPUs after this + * mutex_unlock() provides the necessary memory barrier for + * file->private_data to be visible on all CPUs after this */ + mutex_unlock(&fuse_mutex); fput(file); fuse_send_init(fc, init_req); -- 2.13.6
|