Re: [PATCH 2/4] fscache: Fix race in fscache_op_complete() due to split atomic_sub & read

[Andrea Parri]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 04:26:36PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > > Fix this by using atomic_sub_return() instead of two calls.
> > > > 
> > > > Seems a case for atomic_sub_return_relaxed()... why not?
> > > 
> > > Ummm...  In that case, should it be atomic_sub_return_release()?
> > 
> > Hard to tell for me: your diff./changelog is all I know about fs-cache
> > ... (and this suggests -no-, given that atomic_sub() and atomic_read()
> > provide no ordering...); good question though. ;-)
> 
> Yeah, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be stricter than 'relaxed'.  It's
> kind of like an unlock/release operation, so I think 'release' is probably the
> minimum requirement.

Sure.  My point was: those operations are currently not atomic _and_
they provide no ordering; I think that the above commit message does
a good work in explaining *why* we need atomicity, but can't say the
same for the memory-ordering requirement.

  Andrea


> 
> David