[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1372882901-23077-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:21:41 -0400
From: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
To: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 17/25] file locking: Change how dentry's d_lock and d_count fields are accessed
Because of the changes made in dcache.h header file, files that use
the d_lock and d_count fields of the dentry structure need to be
changed accordingly. All the d_lock's spin_lock() and spin_unlock()
calls are replaced by the corresponding d_lock() and d_unlock() calls.
References to d_count are replaced by the d_ret_count() calls.
There is no change in logic and everything should just work.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
---
fs/locks.c | 2 +-
include/linux/fs.h | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index cb424a4..558f83a 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -1351,7 +1351,7 @@ int generic_add_lease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **flp)
if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0))
goto out;
if ((arg == F_WRLCK)
- && ((dentry->d_count > 1)
+ && ((d_ret_count(dentry) > 1)
|| (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
goto out;
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 65c2be2..68679b6 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -2588,9 +2588,9 @@ static inline ino_t parent_ino(struct dentry *dentry)
* Don't strictly need d_lock here? If the parent ino could change
* then surely we'd have a deeper race in the caller?
*/
- spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ d_lock(dentry);
res = dentry->d_parent->d_inode->i_ino;
- spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ d_unlock(dentry);
return res;
}
--
1.7.1
--
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