From: "William A. (Andy) Adamson" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] pnfs-submit fix kfree under spin lock Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:36:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1279645283-9862-1-git-send-email-andros@netapp.com> <20100720190953.GA22237@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: bhalevy@panasas.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:42316 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761637Ab0GTUhA (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:37:00 -0400 Received: by iwn7 with SMTP id 7so6011081iwn.19 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:37:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100720190953.GA22237@infradead.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:01:18PM -0400, andros@netapp.com wrote: >> >> Fix kfree under spin lock >> >> Both put_lseg and put_layout are called under the inode i_lock where the >> last reference will end up freeing structures. >> >> I know there has been a lot of churn in this code, but free'ing under the >> spin lock is a no-no. > > kfree under a spinlock is perfectly fine. That is as long as you > don't free the spinlock itself. :) -->Andy > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >