Re: correction: fs/buffer.c underlocking async pages

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> It seems we can more simply drop the tmp->b_end_io == end_buffer_io_async
> check enterely and safely.

I doubt it.

Think about somebody who writes a partial page (but a full buffer).
Somebody _else_ then reads the rest of the page. You'll have one buffer
up-to-date (but possibly under write-back IO), and the others being read
in asynchronously.

> +++ 2.4.6pre5aa1/fs/buffer.c	Thu Jun 21 17:05:18 2001
> @@ -850,7 +850,7 @@
>  	atomic_dec(&bh->b_count);
>  	tmp = bh->b_this_page;
>  	while (tmp != bh) {
> -		if (tmp->b_end_io == end_buffer_io_async && buffer_locked(tmp))
> +		if (buffer_locked(tmp))
>  			goto still_busy;
>  		tmp = tmp->b_this_page;
>  	}
>
> can anybody see a problem in the above patch? Al, Ingo, Linus?

The above _will_ break. "tmp" may be locked due to the write - and the
write will never call "end_buffer_io_async" because writes do not unlock
the page. So if the write finishes last, you'll _never_ unlock the page.

I don't see why Stefan wants to change the current logic. The current
logic is correct, and if there are double-unlock problems then those are
due to some other bug.

		Linus