On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:38:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:12:51 +0900
> Masayuki Saito <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It is the problem that i_flags of xfs_inode has no consistent
> > locking protection.
> >
> > For the reason, I define a new spin_lock(i_flags_lock) for i_flags
> > of xfs_inode. And I add this spin_lock for appropriate places.
>
> You could simply use inode.i_lock for this. i_lock is a general-purpose
> per-inode lock. Its mandate is "use it for whatever you like, but it must
> always be `innermost'"
Sounds spot on for our needs here, and has the added benefit of
not increasing the size of the inode (as well as not adding to
our locking complexity). Thanks!
cheers.
--
Nathan
-
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]
