From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752795AbdJ0UTT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:19:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43442 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752652AbdJ0UTQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:19:16 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com AA791C058ECB Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=longman@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] vfs: Use dlock list for SB's s_inodes list To: Boqun Feng Cc: Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , Jeff Layton , "J. Bruce Fields" , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Andi Kleen , Dave Chinner , Davidlohr Bueso References: <1507229008-20569-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <0c570c02-262e-a62a-9ba6-b1b451e53604@redhat.com> <20171027005753.GA22994@tardis> From: Waiman Long Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:19:14 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171027005753.GA22994@tardis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Language: en-US X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:19:16 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/26/2017 08:58 PM, Boqun Feng wrote: >> Is there other objections about merging this patch series? With the >> additional patches 8 & 9 that I sent out on Oct 17, I think I had >> addressed all the concerns that I received so far. Please let me know >> what else do I need to do to make these patches mergeable? >> > Hi Waiman, > > Have you read my email about the dlist_for_each_entry_safe(): > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=150831690725964&w=2 > > ? > > Regards, > Boqun I am sorry that I somehow forgot to respond to this email. Anyway, dlist_for_each_entry_safe() is not currently used and so was not that well-tested. I just sent out another patch to fix that use-after-unlock problem that you had found. The fix is somewhat different from what you proposed, but that should still fix the problem. I modified some dlist_for_each_entry() macros to dlist_for_each_entry_safe(), compiled and boot the kernel. I haven't seen any problem so far. Cheers, Longman