On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:28PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> We currently protect the per-inode state flags with the inode_lock.
> Using a global lock to protect per-object state is overkill when we
> coul duse a per-inode lock to protect the state. Use the
> inode->i_lock for this, and wrap all the state changes and checks
> with the inode->i_lock.
>
> Based on work originally written by Nick Piggin.
> @@ -884,9 +897,9 @@ struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> inode = alloc_inode(sb);
> if (inode) {
> spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode);
> inode->i_ino = ++last_ino;
> inode->i_state = 0;
> + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode);
> spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> }
> return inode;
What's the point in doing this move?
> @@ -953,8 +966,8 @@ static struct inode *get_new_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> if (set(inode, data))
> goto set_failed;
>
> - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode);
> inode->i_state = I_NEW;
> + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode);
Same here.
Otherwise it looks good. But all this moving around of i_lock really
hurts my brain. I guess I'll need to review the placement on a tree
with the fully applied series again.
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
--
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
