lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 04/17] fs: icache lock i_state
    On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 01:54:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > > + 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.

    Good point, fixed.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-16 09:57    [W:0.037 / U:3.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site