From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
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 <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:19:16 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] vfs: Use dlock list for SB's s_inodes list
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
References: <1507229008-20569-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <0c570c02-262e-a62a-9ba6-b1b451e53604@redhat.com>
 <20171027005753.GA22994@tardis>
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <cac4bb99-3d36-f37b-c896-aa0394f7a3c4@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:19:14 -0400
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
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.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