Re: [PATCH 2/5 -tip] cifs: umount_begin BKL pushdown

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:12:02PM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> @@ -525,18 +526,26 @@ static void cifs_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
>  	struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb = CIFS_SB(sb);
>  	struct cifsTconInfo *tcon;
>  
> -	if (cifs_sb == NULL)
> +	lock_kernel();
> +
> +	if (cifs_sb == NULL) {
> +		unlock_kernel();
>  		return;

OK, what are you doing here?  Either the BKL protects the sb here,
and you need to lock_kernel() before calling CIFS_SB(sb), or the BKL
protects nothing, and the lock_kernel() should be moved down below the
test for cifs_sb.

> +	}
>  
>  	tcon = cifs_sb->tcon;
> -	if (tcon == NULL)
> +	if (tcon == NULL) {
> +		unlock_kernel();
>  		return;
> +	}

Likewise -- does cifs rely on the BKL to protect the 'tcon' or not?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/