| Message ID | 20160925192005.GA6517@sudip-Dell-System-Vostro-3450 (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:50:06AM +0530, Sudip Midya wrote: > Signed-off-by: Sudip Midya <midya.sudip@gmail.com> > --- Patch format still needs work. The subject line should be short, the patch description should be in the body of the message, not the subject. Also, this is not a patch for the "mm" subsystem. Addressing the reason given for the change: the RCU lock is not actually protecting queue_delayed_work(), so while the code change may be OK, the reason given for removing it is not. So why is it safe to remove the rcu_read_lock()? Cheers, Dave.
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c index fb39a66..887c868 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c @@ -153,12 +153,10 @@ xfs_reclaim_work_queue( struct xfs_mount *mp) { - rcu_read_lock(); if (radix_tree_tagged(&mp->m_perag_tree, XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG)) { queue_delayed_work(mp->m_reclaim_workqueue, &mp->m_reclaim_work, msecs_to_jiffies(xfs_syncd_centisecs / 6 * 10)); } - rcu_read_unlock(); } /*
Signed-off-by: Sudip Midya <midya.sudip@gmail.com> --- fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)