> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)
> + || inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {
This is some pretty strange formatting.
if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) ||
inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {
would be more standard.
> list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> struct address_space *mapping;
>
> - if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW))
> - continue;
> mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> if (mapping->nrpages == 0)
> continue;
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) {
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + continue;
> + }
Can we access the mapping safely when the inode isn't actually fully
setup? Even if we can I'd rather not introduce this change hidden
inside an unrelated patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
