[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200212161041.GE20214@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:10:42 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] fs/xfs: Check if the inode supports DAX under
lock
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:42:20AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 09:55:09AM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 05:16:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:34:39AM -0800, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > > >
[snip]
> > >
> > > This raciness in checking the DAX flags is the reason that
> > > xfs_ioctl_setattr_xflags() redoes all the reflink vs dax checks once
> > > it's called under the XFS_ILOCK_EXCL during the actual change
> > > transaction....
> >
> > Ok I found this by trying to make sure that the xfs_inode_supports_dax() call
> > was always returning valid data. So I don't have a specific test which was
> > failing.
> >
> > Looking at the code again, it sounds like I was wrong about which locks protect
> > what and with your explanation above it looks like there is nothing to be done
> > here and I can drop the patch.
> >
> > Would you agree?
>
> *nod*
Thanks! done.
Ira
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists