Message ID | 20200628070152.820311-1-ebiggers@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | nilfs2: only call unlock_new_inode() if I_NEW | expand |
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:01:52AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> > > unlock_new_inode() is only meant to be called after a new inode has > already been inserted into the hash table. But nilfs_new_inode() can > call it even before it has inserted the inode, triggering the WARNING in > unlock_new_inode(). Fix this by only calling unlock_new_inode() if the > inode has the I_NEW flag set, indicating that it's in the table. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Ping. Ryusuke, any interest in taking this patch? - Eric
Yeah, I sent this to Andrew a little while ago: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/27/976 Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:50 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:01:52AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> > > > > unlock_new_inode() is only meant to be called after a new inode has > > already been inserted into the hash table. But nilfs_new_inode() can > > call it even before it has inserted the inode, triggering the WARNING in > > unlock_new_inode(). Fix this by only calling unlock_new_inode() if the > > inode has the I_NEW flag set, indicating that it's in the table. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> > > Ping. Ryusuke, any interest in taking this patch? > > - Eric
diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/inode.c b/fs/nilfs2/inode.c index 28009ec54420..3318dd1350b2 100644 --- a/fs/nilfs2/inode.c +++ b/fs/nilfs2/inode.c @@ -388,7 +388,8 @@ struct inode *nilfs_new_inode(struct inode *dir, umode_t mode) failed_after_creation: clear_nlink(inode); - unlock_new_inode(inode); + if (inode->i_state & I_NEW) + unlock_new_inode(inode); iput(inode); /* * raw_inode will be deleted through * nilfs_evict_inode().