Re: [PATCH 1/4] udf: Add missed protection for s_lvid_dirty

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 06:47:08PM +0100, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> As reported in udf_sb.h the udf_sb_infoi's structure member s_lvid_dirty should
> be protected by s_alloc_mutex. Added that mutex on a couple of places where it
> miss.

The whole s_lvid_dirty flag doesn't make any sense to me.  As a start it
simply duplicates s_dirty in the VFS superblock, but even more it just
controls the dirty state of s_lvid_bh.  I think you could simply kill
s_lvid_dirty, plus s_dirty inside udf and replace all calls to
udf_updated_lvid with a simple mark_buffer_dirty(sbi->s_lvid_bh) and
also get rid of all the locking around it.

While looking at this I also noticed that large parts of udf_open_lvid
and udf_close_lvid are basically duplicate.  The only difference seems
to be setting an integrityType of LVID_INTEGRITY_TYPE_OPEN vs
LVID_INTEGRITY_TYPE_CLOSE and updating a few revision counters on close.
If you're interested in working on udf that seems like a nice little
cleanup.
--
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/