From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054CA7F3F for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:17:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5241C915.4040106@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:17:09 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] xfs: asserting lock not held during freeing not valid References: <1380002476-18839-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1380002476-18839-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> In-Reply-To: <1380002476-18839-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 09/24/13 01:01, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > When we free an inode, we do so via RCU. As an RCU lookup can occur > at any time before we free an inode, and that lookup takes the inode > flags lock, we cannot safely assert that the flags lock is not held > just before marking it dead and running call_rcu() to free the > inode. > > We check on allocation of a new inode structre that the lock is not > held, so we still have protection against locks being leaked and > hence not correctly initialised when allocated out of the slab. > Hence just remove the assert... > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > --- Looks good. Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs