From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755675AbaHFPVE (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 11:21:04 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:53197 "EHLO mail-ig0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753438AbaHFPVC (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2014 11:21:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <28626.1406648278@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <53CE8862.7020201@adfin.com> <28626.1406648278@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 11:21:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] FS-Cache: Reduce cookie ref count if submit fails. From: Milosz Tanski To: David Howells Cc: "linux-cachefs@redhat.com" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , NeilBrown , Shantanu Goel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The honest answer is I don't know if it know if needs to be unlocked before or after. I saw a same pattern with unlocking order inside of __fscache_attr_changed in the failure case. If this can be re-ordered I can take care of that in my next version I submit to you. - Milosz On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Howells wrote: > Milosz Tanski wrote: > >> + wake_cookie = __fscache_unuse_cookie(cookie); >> spin_unlock(&cookie->lock); >> + if (wake_cookie) >> + __fscache_wake_unused_cookie(cookie); > > Why do __fscache_unuse_cookie() with cookie->lock held? > > David -- Milosz Tanski CTO 16 East 34th Street, 15th floor New York, NY 10016 p: 646-253-9055 e: milosz@adfin.com