lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the logfs tree with Linus' tree
    On Thu, 3 November 2011 12:02:57 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
    > On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:00:46 +0100 Jörn Engel <joern@logfs.org> wrote:
    > > On Tue, 1 November 2011 14:10:00 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Today's linux-next merge of the logfs tree got a conflict in
    > > > fs/logfs/file.c between commit 02c24a82187d ("fs: push i_mutex and
    > > > filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers") from Linus' tree
    > > > and commit 39da12ef4bbe ("logfs: take write mutex lock during fsync and
    > > > sync") from the logfs tree.
    > > >
    > > > I have no idea what needs to be done here. I fixed it like below to make
    > > > it build, but a better fix is needed.
    > >
    > > From a code perspective your fix below is correct, to the best of my
    > > judgement. I'm less sure what to do from a git perspective.
    > > Explicitly tell Linus about it in the logfs pull request?
    >
    > I was concered about the locking order (or if both locks were needed at
    > all). And, yes, tell Linus.

    Locking order should be fine. Whether both locks are needed is a
    valid question. I suspect the answer is yes.

    Jörn

    --
    Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
    -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
    --
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-03 02:27    [W:0.022 / U:91.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site