On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 04:38:39 +0000 Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:03:50PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:02:18 -0500 > > Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Now you see why I found just dropping the parent mutex easier. > > > > And this is probably why kernfs does things the way it does. I can > > imagine it having the same locking issues. > > The least said about kernfs locking, the better... > > As for the use of trace_types_lock to serialize rmdir vs. event > addition/removal, I wonder what's wrong with actually using the > ->i_mutex of /instances - you have a reference to its dentry, > after all... You mean, instead of grabbing trace_types_lock for modifying of events and trace arrays, we should grab the dentry->d_inode->i_mutex? BTW, what exactly can go wrong with the current method I have that releases the i_mutex, calls the mkdir() method, and then regrabs the i_mutex? -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
