[haiku-commits] Re: r35069 - haiku/trunk/src/add-ons/kernel/file_systems/ext2
- From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:21:28 +0100
On 2010-01-16 at 13:24:16 [+0100], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Nope. Even back in r10 the root node reference was released
> > explicitly.
> > Interestingly, fat's dosfs_unmount() says:
> >
> > // Unlike in BeOS, we need to put the reference to our root node
> > ourselves
> >
> > Introduced by korli in r18667, though also at that revision
> > fs_unmount()
> > freed all root node references itself.
>
> I'm pretty sure that this was my fault originally, though :-)
>
> > > Isn't vnode_to_be_freed() twice here for the root node?
> > > It doesn't really matter, though, since nothing bad happens in
> > > vnode_to_be_freed() - it just doesn't clear kFlagsHot, so the hot
> > > path
> > > might be walked twice.
> > > I guess we should just reduce the ref before the loop, and that's
> > > it?
> > Mmh, I find it a bit worrisome though, that the root node is freed
> > before
> > the FS's unmount() hook is called. The root node is supposed to be
> > still
> > valid at that point.
>
> If that is true, we should let the file system carry the burden of
> freeing the root node -- freeing the root node after unmounting doesn't
> sound like a good solution either.
Well, at least it would allow the FS to access the root node at that point.
On the other hand I can't think of a reason why a file system would really
need to access the root node at this point, though. I'm somewhat undecided.
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
