[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609041945310.28823@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:51:39 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell Cattelan <cattelan@...hat.com>,
David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] GFS2: Core locking interface
Hi,
>> >Unfortunately thats not possible as the struct gfs2_sbd is actually
>> >changed lower down the call chain, but only in the lock_dlm module.
>>
>> +void gfs2_lm_unmount(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp)
>> +{
>> + if (likely(!test_bit(SDF_SHUTDOWN, &sdp->sd_flags)))
>> + gfs2_unmount_lockproto(&sdp->sd_lockstruct);
>> +}
>>
>> I can't follow... test_bit does not modify *sdp or sdp->sd_flags, and
>> gfs2_unmount_lockproto does not either.
>
>sd_lockstruct is part of the superblock and fields in the lockstruct are
>changed by (for example) fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/mount.c: gdlm_unmount() so
>I don't think its valid to mark the superblock const here (despite being
>a great fan of using const in general).
Ah I just looked, and saw that
struct {
struct ... sd_lockstruct;
} sdp;
sd_lockstruct is not a pointer but a struct in line. Yes, you are right.
It would have been valid only if sd_lockstruct was a pointer to non-const
memory.
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists