Hello,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 04:12:29PM +, Konstantin Khorenko wrote:
> i don't know the full scenario unfortunately, but the idea is the following:
>
> __kernfs_remove() is called under kernfs_mutex and if
>!(!kn || (kn->parent && RB_EMPTY_NODE(&kn->rb)))
>
> it assumes that nothing c
On 04/16/2019 10:17 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 06:53:35PM +0300, Konstantin Khorenko wrote:
>> __kernfs_remove() which is called under kernfs_mutex,
>> assumes nobody kills kernfs node whie it's working on it
>> and "get"s current kernfs node for that.
>>
>> But we hit a warning
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 06:53:35PM +0300, Konstantin Khorenko wrote:
> __kernfs_remove() which is called under kernfs_mutex,
> assumes nobody kills kernfs node whie it's working on it
> and "get"s current kernfs node for that.
>
> But we hit a warning in kernfs_get(): kn->counter == 0 already:
>
__kernfs_remove() which is called under kernfs_mutex,
assumes nobody kills kernfs node whie it's working on it
and "get"s current kernfs node for that.
But we hit a warning in kernfs_get(): kn->counter == 0 already:
[ cut here ]
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 63923 at fs/kernfs/d
4 matches
Mail list logo
