The honest answer is I don't know if it know if needs to be unlocked before or after. I saw a same pattern with unlocking order inside of __fscache_attr_changed in the failure case. If this can be re-ordered I can take care of that in my next version I submit to you. - Milosz On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> + wake_cookie = __fscache_unuse_cookie(cookie); >> spin_unlock(&cookie->lock); >> + if (wake_cookie) >> + __fscache_wake_unused_cookie(cookie); > > Why do __fscache_unuse_cookie() with cookie->lock held? > > David -- Milosz Tanski CTO 16 East 34th Street, 15th floor New York, NY 10016 p: 646-253-9055 e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
