[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A244A5B.7070605@sandeen.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:38:35 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Masayoshi MIZUMA <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skip I_CLEAR state inodes
Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Add I_CLEAR tests to drop_pagecache_sb(), generic_sync_sb_inodes() and
> add_dquot_ref().
>
> clear_inode() will switch inode state from I_FREEING to I_CLEAR,
> and do so _outside_ of inode_lock. So any I_FREEING testing is
> incomplete without the testing of I_CLEAR.
>
> Masayoshi MIZUMA first discovered the bug in drop_pagecache_sb() and
> Jan Kara reminds fixing the other two cases. Thanks!
Is there a reason it's not done for __sync_single_inode as well?
Jeff Layton asked the question and I'm following it up :)
__sync_single_inode currently only tests I_FREEING, but I think we are
safe because __sync_single_inode sets I_SYNC, and clear_inode waits for
I_SYNC to be cleared before it changes I_STATE.
On the other hand, testing I_CLEAR here probably would be safe anyway,
and it'd be bonus points for consistency?
Same basic question for generic_sync_sb_inodes, which has a
BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_FREEING), seems like this could check I_CLWAR
as well?
Thanks,
-Eric
--
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