Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:41:11 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: locking rules for ->dirty_inode() |
| |
Nikita Danilov wrote: > > Hello, > > Documentation/filesystems/Locking states that all super operations may > block, but __set_page_dirty_buffers() calls > > __mark_inode_dirty()->s_op->dirty_inode() > > under mapping->private_lock spin lock.
Actually it doesn't. We do not call down into the filesystem for I_DIRTY_PAGES.
set_page_dirty() is already called under locks, via __free_pte (pagetable teardown). 2.4 does this as well.
But I'll make the change anyway. I think it removes any ranking requirements between mapping->page_lock and mapping->private_lock, which is always a nice thing. - 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/
| |