On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:45PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 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!
Oh, except that the generic inode has a different lifecycle to the
xfs_inode_t, which is going to prevent using this. Doh. I had also
looked at the other xfs_inode locks before, but not seen an easy way
to piggyback on those... perhaps a way could be found though.
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]
