Re: [PATCH] fuse: hold i_mutex in fuse_file_fallocate()

[Maxim Patlasov]

Anand, Brian,

06/12/2013 11:04 PM, Anand Avati ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On 6/11/13 3:59 AM, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
>
> > -    if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
> > +    if (lock_inode)
> >           mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>
> > +    if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)
> >           fuse_set_nowrite(inode);
> > -    }
>
> Just for clarity, can you make the condition to check 
> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE and call to fuse_set_nowrite() nested within the 
> larger if (lock_inode) { .. } block? fuse_set_nowrite() should not be 
> called without i_mutex acquired. The current style of calling 
> mutex_lock() and fuse_set_nowrite() in separate conditions can 
> potentially cause bugs in the future if they were to get re-ordered 
> due to some unrelated patch. Nesting them makes the relation more 
> explicit and clear.

Thanks a lot for review. I'll post updated patch soon.

Thanks,
Maxim

--
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/