[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANP1eJFmMNEr9orps6Dd983sp6QmMfBsMT+dY1CvZ+u0nXKf4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 15:41:48 -0400
From: Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Hongyi Jia <jiayisuse@...il.com>,
ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>,
"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>,
"linux-cachefs@...hat.com" <linux-cachefs@...hat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] new fscache interface to check cache consistency
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it as simple as stick a mutex at the top of the
>> __fscache_check_consistency function before we try to find the object?
>
> You can lock a mutex in a function, but where are you actually going to place
> the mutex struct? And what other code is going to take it? To do this, you'd
> have to place the mutex struct in fscache_cookie. The problem is that you
> have to protect the pointer from fscache_cookie to fscache_object - so placing
> the mutex in fscache_object doesn't help.
David,
I meant lock cookie->lock inside of __fscache_check_consistency in the
beginning of the function. I don't see the need to push this into the
netfs code.
- Milosz
--
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