On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Ok, this contains one of the fixes for the dirty inode buffer list (the
> > other fix is pending, simply because I still want to understand why it
> > would be needed at all). Al?
>
> See previous posting. BTW, -pre5 doesn't do the right thing in clear_inode().
>
> Scenario: bh of indirect block is busy (whatever reason, flush_dirty_buffers(),
> anything that can bump ->b_count for a while). ext2_truncate() frees the
> thing and does bforget(). bh is left on the inode's list. Woops...
So? Why wouldn't clear_inode() get rid of it?
> The minimal fix would be to make clear_inode() empty the list. IMO it's
> worse than preventing the freed stuff from being on that list...
This _is_ what clear_inode() does in pre5 (and in pre4, for that matter):
void clear_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
if (!list_empty(&inode->i_dirty_buffers))
invalidate_inode_buffers(inode);
...
which I find perfectly readable. And should mean that no dirty buffers
should be associated with the inode any more. ext2 calls clear_inode()
from ext2_free_inode(), and as far as I can tell the only thing that can
happen after that is that the inode is still scheduled for write-out
(which explains how the bug you fixed would cause a dirty block to be
attached to the inode _after_ we did a clear_inode() on it).
Or are you thinking of something else?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST