Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:39:07 +0530 | From | Suparna Bhattacharya <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] lock_buffer_wq do lock |
| |
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > I've twice got fs/buffer.c:2668 submit_bh BUG_ON(!buffer_locked(bh)): > when called from sync_dirty_buffer which clearly does the lock_buffer. > My suspicion falls on lock_buffer_wq (whereas __lock_page_wq looks OK). > > I'm leaving a test running, > can't judge until tomorrow whether this is indeed the fix to that. > > Hugh > > --- 2.5.71-mm1/include/linux/buffer_head.h Sun Jun 15 12:36:11 2003 > +++ linux/include/linux/buffer_head.h Mon Jun 16 14:13:25 2003 > @@ -291,9 +291,11 @@ > > static inline int lock_buffer_wq(struct buffer_head *bh, wait_queue_t *wait) > { > - if (test_set_buffer_locked(bh)) > - return __wait_on_buffer_wq(bh, wait); > - > + while (test_set_buffer_locked(bh)) { > + int ret = __wait_on_buffer_wq(bh, wait); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } > return 0; > }
You are right - this should be a while loop mirroring what lock_buffer does.
Actually, I probably ought to just avoid the dual paths, and make lock_buffer a wrapper for lock_buffer_wq -- less chances of divergence between the two.
Regards Suparna
-- Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Labs, India
- 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/
| |