Re: [patch] fs: fix superblock iteration race

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:15:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Something like this
> >
> >  fs/dcache.c |   14 ++++++++++++--
> >  fs/super.c  |   51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> Ok, I have to admit that I didn't expect it to blow up quite that
> badly - I thought it would add a line or two, not 50.

In fairness I added a lot more comments and a bit of whitespace,
accounting for about half of those lines added.

 
> So wow I wonder if we should use your old approach instead, just make
> it an 'official' thing. IOW, maybe we can use
> "list_for_each_entry_safe()" after all, but simply introduce a
> "reset_next_entry()" helper or something and make that be part of the
> "calling convention" for those things.
> 
> But I can live with the open-coded version too. It just is a bit more
> code than I thought it would be.
> 
> Anybody? I don't really have very strong opinions.

I wouldn't mind a list macro to reset. I'd prefer the name
match better with the iterator macro though.
list_safe_reset_next()?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html