On mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:48:32 +0400, Azat Khuzhin wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Azat Khuzhin <a3at.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Replace list_for_each_entry() by list_for_each_entry_safe() in >> __btrfs_close_devices() >> >> There is another place that delete items lock_stripe_add(), but there we >> don't need safe version, because after deleting we exit from loop. >> >> Signed-off-by: Azat Khuzhin <a3at.m...@gmail.com> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> index 78b8717..1d1b595 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> @@ -616,13 +616,13 @@ static void free_device(struct rcu_head *head) >> >> static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices) >> { >> - struct btrfs_device *device; >> + struct btrfs_device *device, *next; >> >> if (--fs_devices->opened > 0) >> return 0; >> >> mutex_lock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); >> - list_for_each_entry(device, &fs_devices->devices, dev_list) { >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(device, next, &fs_devices->devices, >> dev_list) { >> struct btrfs_device *new_device; >> struct rcu_string *name; > > There is "kfree(device);" at the end of loop, maybe there must "goto > again;" after it? > (instead of this patch)
Your fix is right, we needn't search from the head once again. The other fix way is: call_rcu(&device->rcu, free_device); + device = new_device; } but from the viewpoint of the readability, this way is not so good. Reviewed-by: Miao Xie <mi...@cn.fujitsu.com> > >> >> -- >> 1.7.10.4 >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html