On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:34 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote: > Hi Mingming, > > And, Looking at other places calling ext4_*_get_blocks() in the kernel, > > it seems not all of them protected by i_mutex lock. I think it probably > > okay to not holding i_mutex during calling ext4_ext4_get_blocks(). > > We are not holding i_mutex lock during ext4_ext_get_blocks() call. > Above, this lock is being held inorder to avoid race while updating the > filesize in inode (reference your comment in a previous mail "I think we > should update i_size and i_disksize after preallocation. Oh, > to protect parallel updating i_size, we have to take i_mutex down."). > Perhaps, truncate_mutex lock should be used here, and not i_mutex. > truncate_mutex is hold at the entry of ext4_**_get_blocks() to protect parallel block allocation. Here I was worried about concurrent modifying i_size and i_disksize which were protected by the i_mutex lock. Sorry for any confusion. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
