Thank you for your comment.
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> 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'"
>
I think that inode.i_lock isn't appropriate for this case.
Because there is the situation that no inode is attached to an xfs_inode.
Masayuki
-
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]
