On Sat 02-02-13 15:21:09, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> Hi. Jan.
>
> Sorry for interrupt.
> Have you taken this patch to your tree ? I can not find it..
> or Is there any issue regarding this patch ?
I had it in my tree but not in the for_next branch. Did it now so you
should see the patch in tomorrow's linux-next.
Honza
> 2013/1/22, Namjae Jeon <linkinj...@gmail.com>:
> > 2013/1/22, Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>:
> >> On Tue 22-01-13 09:45:09, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> >>> 2013/1/21, Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>:
> >>> > @@ -2222,6 +2219,8 @@ int udf_read_extent_cache(struct inode *inode,
> >>> > loff_t
> >>> > bcount,
> >>> > *lbcount = iinfo->cached_extent.lstart;
> >>> > memcpy(pos, &iinfo->cached_extent.epos,
> >>> > sizeof(struct extent_position));
> >>> > + if (pos->bh)
> >>> > + get_bh(pos->bh);
> >>> > spin_unlock(&iinfo->i_extent_cache_lock);
> >>> > return 1;
> >>> > } else
> >>> > This is the most important - we should give buffer reference to
> >>> > pos->bh.
> >>> > Caller will eventually free it right?
> >>> This change is not required as we give buffer reference to pos->bh at
> >>> the time of cache update.
> >>> When we start reading a file, first we try to read the cache which
> >>> will lead to cache miss.
> >>> So, we would really access the pos->bh in udf_update_extent_cache for
> >>> the first time, and this is where the buffer reference is incremented.
> >>> Calling get_bh at 2 places will eventually lead to mem leak.
> >>> Let me know your opinion.
> >> Yes, udf_update_extent_cache() gets its own reference to bh but that is
> >> dropped in udf_clear_extent_cache(). So I think udf_read_extent_cache()
> >> needs to get a reference to the caller (as the caller will eventually
> >> free
> >> the bh via brelse(epos.bh) e.g. in udf_extend_file(). Also I realized
> >> udf_update_extent_cache() needs to first clear the cache if it is valid.
> >> Otherwise it just overwrites bh pointer and reference is leaked. Is it
> >> clearer now?
> > Yes, you're right. Also, this patch looks good to me.
> >>
> >> I've also changed locking of udf_clear_extent_cache() so that
> >> i_extent_cache_lock is always taken for that function - it makes the
> >> locking rules obvious at the first sight.
> > Yes, right. it is needed.
> > When we test with this patch, working fine.
> > Thanks Jan!
> >>
> >> Attached is the patch I currently carry.
> >>
> >> Honza
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
> >> SUSE Labs, CR
> >>
> >
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
