[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141128162850.GJ4911@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:28:50 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Patrick Farrell <paf@...y.com>
Cc: Loïc Pefferkorn <loic@...cp.eu>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"gdonald@...il.com" <gdonald@...il.com>,
"HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org" <HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org>
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warnings
related to lock context imbalance
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:45:24PM +0000, Patrick Farrell wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I disagree about the change suggested here. In this particular code,
> 'object_attr' is distinct from 'attr', as in a 'setattr' call on an
> inode. 'cl_object' is a distinct thing from an inode/file on disk,
> and specifying it is the objects attr is helpful in understanding
> there is not a direct relationship to 'attr' in the general filesystem
> sense. (cl_object attrs are used in determining actual on disk
> attributes, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence.)
>
> I am willing to be corrected, but that is my first feeling here.
I haven't looked at it deeply. Loïc was suggesting that we need new
locking functions to deal with lustre's unwieldy naming schemes and I
think we should just fix the names...
We already have a cl_attr struct. Is that different from what
we're locking here? I don't think anyone will think this takes an inode
argument.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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