Commit 06b282a4 authored by Artem Bityutskiy's avatar Artem Bityutskiy Committed by Artem Bityutskiy
Browse files

UBIFS: add few commentaries about TNC 



Add a couple of comments - while looking into TNC I could not easily figure out
few facts, so it is a good idea to document them in the code.

Signed-off-by: default avatarArtem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
parent 37662447

fs/ubifs/tnc_commit.c

+26 −0
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -89,6 +89,10 @@ static int make_idx_node(struct ubifs_info *c, struct ubifs_idx_node *idx, 
	ubifs_assert(ubifs_zn_dirty(znode));

	ubifs_assert(ubifs_zn_cow(znode));



	/*

	 * Note, unlike 'write_index()' we do not add memory barriers here

	 * because this function is called with @c->tnc_mutex locked.

	 */

	__clear_bit(DIRTY_ZNODE, &znode->flags);

	__clear_bit(COW_ZNODE, &znode->flags);
@@ -903,6 +907,28 @@ static int write_index(struct ubifs_info *c) 
		clear_bit(COW_ZNODE, &znode->flags);

		smp_mb__after_clear_bit();



		/*

		 * We have marked the znode as clean but have not updated the

		 * @c->clean_zn_cnt counter. If this znode becomes dirty again

		 * before 'free_obsolete_znodes()' is called, then

		 * @c->clean_zn_cnt will be decremented before it gets

		 * incremented (resulting in 2 decrements for the same znode).

		 * This means that @c->clean_zn_cnt may become negative for a

		 * while.

		 *

		 * Q: why we cannot increment @c->clean_zn_cnt?

		 * A: because we do not have the @c->tnc_mutex locked, and the

		 *    following code would be racy and buggy:

		 *

		 *    if (!ubifs_zn_obsolete(znode)) {

		 *            atomic_long_inc(&c->clean_zn_cnt);

		 *            atomic_long_inc(&ubifs_clean_zn_cnt);

		 *    }

		 *

		 *    Thus, we just delay the @c->clean_zn_cnt update until we

		 *    have the mutex locked.

		 */



		/* Do not access znode from this point on */



		/* Update buffer positions */