On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 03:35:14PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 03:13:13PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 01:49:23PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:30:47PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock. > > > > > * > > > > > + * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock. > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > No need to repeat, we got it.. > > > > > > Except that I didn't see where you fixed all the places where it is > > > *not* the innermost lock. Like for example places that take dcache_lock > > > inside i_lock. > > > > I can't find any code outside of ceph where the dcache_lock is used > > within 200 lines of code of the inode->i_lock. The ceph code is not > > nesting them, though. > > You mustn't have looked very hard? From ceph: > > spin_unlock(&dcache_lock); > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > > (and yes, acquisition side does go in i_lock->dcache_lock order) A really quick grep reveals cifs is using GlobalSMBSeslock inside i_lock too. Everything uses i_size seqlock inside it, but I guess that's *always* the inner innermost lock so it doesn't really count. -- 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
