On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 03:37:18PM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 18:29 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 04:45:51PM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote: > > > > + /* FIXME!! should we take inode->i_mutex ? Currently we can't because > > > > + * it has a circular locking dependency with DIO. But migrate expect > > > > + * i_mutex to ensure no i_data changes > > > > Should I worry that we have something in the stable part of the patch > > queue with this FIXME!! comment? :-) > > > > I think this comment could be moved to the migration.c. We can't take > i_mutex on mapped IO path. The i_data_mutex is the lock that should > protect the i_data concurrent changes, which is currently mapped IO > used. The race with migration could be addressed in migration instead of > here. I propose we drop this comment for now. OK, but that still means we have a known bug in the migration code, which is in mainline.... - Ted -- 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
