IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
debugging printks left in ->destroy_inode() and so's the
update of inode count; we could take the latter to RCU-delayed
part (would take only moving the check on module exit past
rcu_barrier() there), but debugging output ought to either
stay where it is or go into ->evict_inode()
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
we might want to drop ->destroy_inode() there - it's used only for
WARN_ON() now, and AFAICS that could be moved to ->evict_inode()
if we had one...
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
move the synchronous stuff from ->destroy_inode() to ->evict_inode(),
turn the RCU-delayed part into ->free_inode()
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
... and use GFS2_I() to get the containing gfs2_inode by inode;
yes, we can feed the address of the first member of structure
to kmem_cache_free(), but let's do it in an obviously safe way.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
A lot of ->destroy_inode() instances end with call_rcu() of a callback
that does RCU-delayed part of freeing. Introduce a new method for
doing just that, with saner signature.
Rules:
->destroy_inode ->free_inode
f g immediate call of f(),
RCU-delayed call of g()
f NULL immediate call of f(),
no RCU-delayed calls
NULL g RCU-delayed call of g()
NULL NULL RCU-delayed default freeing
IOW, NULL ->free_inode gives the same behaviour as now.
Note that NULL, NULL is equivalent to NULL, free_inode_nonrcu; we could
mandate the latter form, but that would have very little benefit beyond
making rules a bit more symmetric. It would break backwards compatibility,
require extra boilerplate and expected semantics for (NULL, NULL) pair
would have no use whatsoever...
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
