From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: Leonardo Chiquitto <leonardo.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Missing spin_lock(&dcache_lock)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:17:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B4C8465.6050100@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100111115257.GA3211@libre.l.ngdn.org>
On 01/11/2010 07:52 PM, Leonardo Chiquitto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If I compare the 2.6.18 and 2.6.20 kernel trees after applying,
> respectively, autofs4-2.6.18-v5-update-20090903.patch and
> autofs4-2.6.20-v5-update-20090903.patch, I can understand most of the
> differences, but this specific chunk seems strange to me:
Oops.
I'll have a look but, from memory, that lock should be present.
The back porting of changes to older kernels gets harder and more error
prone as time passes.
>
> diff -Nurp linux-2.6.18.8/fs/autofs4/root.c linux-2.6.20.21/fs/autofs4/root.c
> --- linux-2.6.18.8/fs/autofs4/root.c 2010-01-08 13:34:35.000000000 -0200
> +++ linux-2.6.20.21/fs/autofs4/root.c 2010-01-11 09:00:28.000000000 -0200
> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ static int autofs4_dir_open(struct inode
> * autofs file system so just let the libfs routines handle
> * it.
> */
> + spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> if (!d_mountpoint(dentry) && __simple_empty(dentry)) {
> spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> return -ENOENT;
>
> Was this line left out by mistake? If yes, can you please consider the patch
> below?
>
> Thanks,
> Leonardo
>
> Index: autofs/patches/autofs4-2.6.18-v5-update-20090903.patch
> ===================================================================
> --- autofs.orig/patches/autofs4-2.6.18-v5-update-20090903.patch
> +++ autofs/patches/autofs4-2.6.18-v5-update-20090903.patch
> @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@
> + * autofs file system so just let the libfs routines handle
> + * it.
> + */
> ++ spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> + if (!d_mountpoint(dentry) && __simple_empty(dentry)) {
> spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> -
> Index: autofs/patches/autofs4-2.6.19-v5-update-20090903.patch
> ===================================================================
> --- autofs.orig/patches/autofs4-2.6.19-v5-update-20090903.patch
> +++ autofs/patches/autofs4-2.6.19-v5-update-20090903.patch
> @@ -1041,6 +1041,7 @@
> + * autofs file system so just let the libfs routines handle
> + * it.
> + */
> ++ spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> + if (!d_mountpoint(dentry) && __simple_empty(dentry)) {
> spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> -
>
> _______________________________________________
> autofs mailing list
> autofs@linux.kernel.org
> http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-12 14:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-11 11:52 Missing spin_lock(&dcache_lock) Leonardo Chiquitto
2010-01-12 14:17 ` Ian Kent [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B4C8465.6050100@themaw.net \
--to=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=autofs@linux.kernel.org \
--cc=leonardo.lists@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.