Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add possibly missing iput() when quotaon andquotaoff races

[Jan Kara]

On Thu 13-03-08 14:42:11, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:05:52 +0100
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > We should always put inode we have reference to, even if quota was reenabled
> > in the mean time.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > ---
> >  dquot.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/dquot.c b/fs/dquot.c
> > index f816d06..24eef58 100644
> > --- a/fs/dquot.c
> > +++ b/fs/dquot.c
> > @@ -1522,8 +1522,8 @@ int vfs_quota_off(struct super_block *sb, int type)
> >  				truncate_inode_pages(&toputinode[cnt]->i_data, 0);
> >  				mutex_unlock(&toputinode[cnt]->i_mutex);
> >  				mark_inode_dirty(toputinode[cnt]);
> > -				iput(toputinode[cnt]);
> >  			}
> > +			iput(toputinode[cnt]);
> >  			mutex_unlock(&dqopt->dqonoff_mutex);
> >  		}
> >  	if (sb->s_bdev)
> This one looks like 2.6.25 material?
  Yes, this can be nasty when triggered (Busy inodes after umount) and the
patch is safe.

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/