Il 09/06/2012 02:28, Andrew Morton ha scritto: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:46:47 -0700 Linus > Torvalds<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Of course, if you just mean having a VFS wrapper that does >> >> static void vfs_inode_kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep) >> { >> rcu_barrier(); >> kmem_cache_destroy(cachep); >> } >> >> then we could do that. Not much better than what Kirill's patch did, >> but at least we could have that comment in just one single place. > > That's conceptually what I meant. But it has the problem that new and > out-of-tree filesystems might forget to do it. Which is why I suggest > adding a kmem_cache* argument to unregister_filesystem() for this. > > It's a bit awkward, and the fs can pass in NULL if it knows what it's > doing. But it's reliable. > --
The call of rcu_barrier should be mandatory for the "unload fs module" problem, right? If the fs is compiled statically maybe we could avoid it, but (eventually) this kind of decision is per-fs, so this could be a clue that the call of rcu_barrier maybe is inside each fs not in VFS. Marco ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
