On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 02:10, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue 08-03-22 08:33:15, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> > From: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Convert ext4_inode_info->i_fc_lock to spinlock to avoid sleeping
> > in invalid contexts.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> One comment below...
>
> > @@ -972,9 +970,13 @@ static int ext4_fc_wait_inode_data_all(journal_t *journal)
> >
> > spin_lock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN], i_fc_list) {
> > + spin_lock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
> > if (!ext4_test_inode_state(&pos->vfs_inode,
> > - EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING))
> > + EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING)) {
> > + spin_unlock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
> > continue;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
> > spin_unlock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
>
> Why do you add a lock here in a pure lock-conversion patch? Furthermore I
> don't think the lock is needed...
Oops sorry, this was an unintentional leftover from the first version,
I'll remove it in the next one, thanks!
- Harshad
>
> Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR
