On mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:48:32 +0400, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Azat Khuzhin <a3at.mail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Replace list_for_each_entry() by list_for_each_entry_safe() in
>> __btrfs_close_devices()
>>
>> There is another place that delete items lock_stripe_add(), but there we
>> don't need safe version, because after deleting we exit from loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Azat Khuzhin <a3at.mail@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> index 78b8717..1d1b595 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> @@ -616,13 +616,13 @@ static void free_device(struct rcu_head *head)
>>
>> static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
>> {
>> - struct btrfs_device *device;
>> + struct btrfs_device *device, *next;
>>
>> if (--fs_devices->opened > 0)
>> return 0;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>> - list_for_each_entry(device, &fs_devices->devices, dev_list) {
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(device, next, &fs_devices->devices, dev_list) {
>> struct btrfs_device *new_device;
>> struct rcu_string *name;
>
> There is "kfree(device);" at the end of loop, maybe there must "goto
> again;" after it?
> (instead of this patch)
Your fix is right, we needn't search from the head once again.
The other fix way is:
call_rcu(&device->rcu, free_device);
+ device = new_device;
}
but from the viewpoint of the readability, this way is not so good.
Reviewed-by: Miao Xie <miaox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
