On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > All the functionality that the inode_lock protected has now been > wrapped up in new independent locks and/or functionality. Hence the > inode_lock does not serve a purpose any longer and hence can now be > removed. Might be worth mentioning this also updates the locking / lock order documenation all over the place. > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking > @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ alloc_inode: > destroy_inode: > dirty_inode: (must not sleep) > write_inode: > -drop_inode: !!!inode_lock!!! > +drop_inode: !!!i_lock, sb_inode_list_lock!!! sb_inode_list_lock now is sb->s_inodes_lock, this also applies in a few other places. > +[mandatory] > + inode_lock is gone, replaced by fine grained locks. See fs/inode.c > +for details of what locks to replace inode_lock with in order to protect > +particular things. Most of the time, a filesystem only needs ->i_lock, which > +protects *all* the inode state and its membership on lists that was > +previously protected with inode_lock. Which list membership does i_lock protect? > --- a/fs/notify/inode_mark.c > +++ b/fs/notify/inode_mark.c > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > #include <linux/module.h> > #include <linux/mutex.h> > #include <linux/spinlock.h> > -#include <linux/writeback.h> /* for inode_lock */ > +#include <linux/writeback.h> Do we still need writeback.h here? > @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ > #include <linux/buffer_head.h> > #include <linux/capability.h> > #include <linux/quotaops.h> > -#include <linux/writeback.h> /* for inode_lock, oddly enough.. */ > +#include <linux/writeback.h> Same here. Otherwise looks good, 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
