On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 01:54:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + 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.
Good point, fixed.
--
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
