On Mon 24-02-20 11:46:55, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 01:59:16PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > + /* > > + * We are the only ones holding inode reference. The xattr_sem should > > + * better be unlocked! We could as well just not acquire xattr_sem at > > + * all but this makes the code more futureproof. OTOH we need trylock > > + * here to avoid false-positive warning from lockdep about reclaim > > + * circular dependency. > > + */ > > + if (WARN_ON(!down_write_trylock(&EXT2_I(inode)->xattr_sem))) > > + return; > > Shouldn't this be a WARN_ON_ONCE? Just in case the impossible happens > that avoids spamming dmesg over and over. Fair enough, I'll switch to WARN_ON_ONCE here. Thanks for the review. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
