[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101001055433.GC32349@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 01:54:33 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/17] fs: icache lock i_state
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)
> + || inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {
This is some pretty strange formatting.
if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) ||
inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {
would be more standard.
> list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> struct address_space *mapping;
>
> - if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW))
> - continue;
> mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> if (mapping->nrpages == 0)
> continue;
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) {
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + continue;
> + }
Can we access the mapping safely when the inode isn't actually fully
setup? Even if we can I'd rather not introduce this change hidden
inside an unrelated patch.
--
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