lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 04/17] fs: icache lock i_state
> +		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)
> + || inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {


This is some pretty strange formatting.

if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) ||
inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {
would be more standard.

> list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> struct address_space *mapping;
>
> - if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW))
> - continue;
> mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> if (mapping->nrpages == 0)
> continue;
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) {
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + continue;
> + }

Can we access the mapping safely when the inode isn't actually fully
setup? Even if we can I'd rather not introduce this change hidden
inside an unrelated patch.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-03 22:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans