![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:45PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:38:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:12:51 +0900 > > Masayuki Saito <m-saito@tnes.nec.co.jp> wrote: > > > > > It is the problem that i_flags of xfs_inode has no consistent > > > locking protection. > > > > > > For the reason, I define a new spin_lock(i_flags_lock) for i_flags > > > of xfs_inode. And I add this spin_lock for appropriate places. > > > > You could simply use inode.i_lock for this. i_lock is a general-purpose > > per-inode lock. Its mandate is "use it for whatever you like, but it must > > always be `innermost'" > > Sounds spot on for our needs here, and has the added benefit of > not increasing the size of the inode (as well as not adding to > our locking complexity). Thanks! Oh, except that the generic inode has a different lifecycle to the xfs_inode_t, which is going to prevent using this. Doh. I had also looked at the other xfs_inode locks before, but not seen an easy way to piggyback on those... perhaps a way could be found though. cheers. -- Nathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-24 07:49 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||