Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:57:09 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i_lock |
| |
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:18:43AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set > > before the inode was added to various lists and potentially > > accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that > > effect, right? > > Yes, please.
This is due to i_lock not covering all the icache state of the inode, so you have to make these synchronisation changes like this.
I much prefer such proposals to go at the end of my series, where I will probably nack them (and use rcu instead if the remaining trylocks are such a big issue).
| |