[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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).

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-16 10:01    [W:0.139 / U:11.532 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site