Russ Weight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem is more likely in generic_forget_inode(). It releases the
Exactly. It's a continuation of the greased turkey bug :) When we're writing the inode out, we shouldn't place it on the unused list at all. Placing the inode on the unused list only makes sense when we return from generic_forget_inode without actually destroying the inode. So we need something like this. I'm not sure about the nr_unused counter though. Should we be incrementing it as we do now even when we don't put the inode on the unused list? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- ===== fs/inode.c 1.144 vs edited ===== --- 1.144/fs/inode.c 2005-03-05 17:41:15 +11:00 +++ edited/fs/inode.c 2005-03-19 11:11:56 +11:00 @@ -1037,12 +1037,14 @@ struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb; if (!hlist_unhashed(&inode->i_hash)) { - if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY|I_LOCK))) - list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused); inodes_stat.nr_unused++; - spin_unlock(&inode_lock); - if (!sb || (sb->s_flags & MS_ACTIVE)) + if (!sb || (sb->s_flags & MS_ACTIVE)) { + if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY|I_LOCK))) + list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused); + spin_unlock(&inode_lock); return; + } + spin_unlock(&inode_lock); write_inode_now(inode, 1); spin_lock(&inode_lock); inodes_stat.nr_unused--; - 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/
