Re: [PATCH v2] Fix AFFS race condition.

[Marco Stornelli]

2012/5/14 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>:
> On Mon 14-05-12 12:40:45, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> 2012/5/14 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>:
>> > On Sun 13-05-12 15:44:33, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>> >> AFFS code preallocates several blocks as an optimisation. Unfortunately
>> >> it's not protected by lock so the same blocks may end up allocated twice.
>> >> Here is a fix.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko <phcoder@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >  The patch looks good to me now. Thanks! You can add:
>> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
>> >
>> >  Al, will you merge this patch through your tree? AFFS does not seem to
>> > have a maintainer so you are a default fallback...
>> >
>> >                                                                Honza
>> >
>>
>> I don't know the AFFS code, so only a question. Instead to use a spin
>> lock, I think we can use a simple mutex. Or is the spin lock
>> mandatory?
>  So what would be an advantage of a mutex? Spinlock *is* the simple locking
> variant...
>
>                                                                Honza
> --

None actually, only style, but if there are performance consideration
already done, ok it was only a question. :)

Marco
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/