From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: remove unnecessary svc_xprt_put Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:44:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20100301144439.GD17660@fieldses.org> References: <19336.19524.469529.431210@notabene.brown> <20100226225416.GF26598@fieldses.org> <4B886A1A.7060106@opengridcomputing.com> <20100227123537.6289e326@notabene.brown> <4B8885A1.500@opengridcomputing.com> <20100301152310.750f3504@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Tom Tucker , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Brown Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:48674 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751119Ab0CAOnd (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:43:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100301152310.750f3504-wvvUuzkyo1EYVZTmpyfIwg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:23:10PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:38:25 -0600 > Tom Tucker wrote: > > > Neil Brown wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:40:58 -0600 > > > Tom Tucker wrote: > > > > > > > > >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:33:40AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> [I found this while looking for the current refcount problem > > >>>> that triggers a warning in svc_recv. This isn't that bug > > >>>> but is a different refcount bug - NB] > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> I seem to recall that we added that reference for a reason. There was > > >> an issue with unmount while there were deferrals pending. That's why the > > >> reference was added. > > >> > > >> Tom > > >> > > > > > > What reference? > > > What I (thought I) found was code that was dropping a reference which it > > > didn't hold. Are you saying that it is supposed to be holding a reference > > > here, but isn't, or that it really is holding a reference here and I didn't > > > see it? > > > > > > > Here's the commit that I was thinking of... > > 22945e4a1c7454c97f5d8aee1ef526c83fef3223 > > > > I think this change adds the bug that you are now fixing. It fixed one > > problem, but added another that you have now resolved. > > > > What do you guys think? > > Yes, I see what you are saying. > > I agree that commit did fix a problem, but inadvertently introduced a new one. Agreed. So it looks to there's nothing additional here to fix. (Correct me if I'm overlooking something.) --b.