On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > + spin_lock(&mapping->private_lock);
> > +
> > + bh = head;
> > + do {
> > + get_bh(bh);
> > + lock_buffer(bh);
> > + bh = bh->b_this_page;
> > +
> > + } while (bh != head);
> > +
>
> Guys, lock_buffer() sleeps and cannot be called inside spinlock.
I took it the way it was in the hotplug patches.We are taking the
spinlock here to protect the scan over the list of bh's of this page
right?
Is it not sufficient to have the page locked to guarantee that the list of
buffers is not changed? Seems that ext3 does that (see
ext3_ordered_writepage() etc).
like this?
Index: linux-2.6.15/fs/buffer.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.15.orig/fs/buffer.c 2006-01-10 22:13:37.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.15/fs/buffer.c 2006-01-10 22:37:28.000000000 -0800
@@ -3070,8 +3070,6 @@ int buffer_migrate_page(struct page *new
if (migrate_page_remove_references(newpage, page, 3))
return -EAGAIN;
- spin_lock(&mapping->private_lock);
-
bh = head;
do {
get_bh(bh);
@@ -3094,11 +3092,9 @@ int buffer_migrate_page(struct page *new
} while (bh != head);
SetPagePrivate(newpage);
- spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
migrate_page_copy(newpage, page);
- spin_lock(&mapping->private_lock);
bh = head;
do {
unlock_buffer(bh);
@@ -3106,7 +3102,6 @@ int buffer_migrate_page(struct page *new
bh = bh->b_this_page;
} while (bh != head);
- spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
return 0;
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
