To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jakub.bogusz@gemius.pl
In-reply-to: <20071004154348.71535f47.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (message from
	Andrew Morton on Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:43:48 -0700)
Subject: Re: [patch 02/12] fuse: fix race between getattr and write
References: <20071002155026.650555479@szeredi.hu>
	<20071002155213.312599553@szeredi.hu> <20071004154348.71535f47.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Message-Id: <E1IdZZp-0002Xp-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:53:53 +0200
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1141
Lines: 33

> > @@ -228,6 +243,7 @@ static struct dentry *fuse_lookup(struct
> >  	struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(dir);
> >  	struct fuse_req *req;
> >  	struct fuse_req *forget_req;
> > +	u64 attr_version;
> >  
> >  	if (entry->d_name.len > FUSE_NAME_MAX)
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-ENAMETOOLONG);
> > @@ -242,6 +258,10 @@ static struct dentry *fuse_lookup(struct
> >  		return ERR_PTR(PTR_ERR(forget_req));
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	spin_lock(&fc->lock);
> > +	attr_version = fc->attr_version;
> > +	spin_unlock(&fc->lock);
> 
> You might want to do this (oft-repeated) operation in a little helper
> function.
> 
> Because I suspect that the lock isn't needed if CONFIG_64BIT=y.

You're perfectly right, although fuse is not yet at the stage, where
I'd bother too much with scalability optimizations like that ;)

But it's a good cleanup, and I'll do an incremental patch on top of
this if that's OK.

Miklos
-
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/