On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 17:10 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
quoted text
> 
> > +     /*
> > +      * We don't have to hold all of the locks at the
> > +      * same time here because we know that we're the
> > +      * last reference to mnt and that no new writers
> > +      * can come in.
> > +      */
> > +     for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +             struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
> > +             if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt)
> > +                     continue;
> > +             spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
> > +             atomic_add(cpu_writer->count, &mnt->__mnt_writers);
> > +             cpu_writer->count = 0;
> 
> I think you should also add a
> 
>                 cpu_writer->mnt = NULL;
> 
> here.  It's not a bug, but I had to think a bit about why it's not a
> bug.

Yeah, I kinda copied the code from __clear_mnt_count() where keeping
->mnt is actually a mini optimization.  But, there is certainly no
chance of that mnt popping up again after a __mntput(), so I clear it in
there now.  I also added a comment explaining.

-- Dave

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