On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:40:38PM -0700, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> An earlier call of xfs_reinit_inode() from xfs_iget_cache_hit() already
> handles initialization of i_rwsem.
>
> Doing so again is unneeded.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
Seems reasonable to me,
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
--D
>
> ---
> Changes from V4:
> Update commit message to make it clear the xfs_iget_cache_hit()
> is actually doing the initialization via xfs_reinit_inode()
>
> New for V4:
>
> NOTE: This was found while ensuring the new i_aops_sem was properly
> handled. It seems like this is a layering violation so I think it is
> worth cleaning up so as to not confuse others.
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> index 8dc2e5414276..836a1f09be03 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> @@ -419,6 +419,7 @@ xfs_iget_cache_hit(
> spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> + ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&inode->i_rwsem));
> error = xfs_reinit_inode(mp, inode);
> if (error) {
> bool wake;
> @@ -452,9 +453,6 @@ xfs_iget_cache_hit(
> ip->i_sick = 0;
> ip->i_checked = 0;
>
> - ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&inode->i_rwsem));
> - init_rwsem(&inode->i_rwsem);
> -
> spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
> spin_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
> } else {
> --
> 2.25.1
>
