On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:22:09AM -0400, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index 487c924..13d23b6 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -961,6 +961,17 @@ void unlock_new_inode(struct inode *inode)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(unlock_new_inode);
>
> +/*
> + * We order !IS_NOQUOTA files before ISNOQUOTA files, and by pointer
> + * within each category.
> + */
> +static bool nondir_mutex_ordered(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2)
> +{
> + if (IS_NOQUOTA(inode1) == IS_NOQUOTA(inode2))
> + return inode1 < inode2;
> + return IS_NOQUOTA(inode2);
> +}
This seems kind of awful. Is it what you were thinking of originally,
Al, and could we live with it?
> +
> /**
> * lock_two_nondirectories - take two i_mutexes on non-directory objects
> * @inode1: first inode to lock; must be non-NULL
> @@ -970,7 +981,7 @@ void lock_two_nondirectories(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2)
> {
> if (inode1 == inode2 || inode2 == NULL)
> mutex_lock(&inode1->i_mutex);
> - else if (inode1 < inode2) {
> + else if (nondir_mutex_ordered(inode1, inode2)) {
> mutex_lock(&inode1->i_mutex);
> mutex_lock_nested(&inode2->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_QUOTA);
But I still don't see how to stop this code racing with S_NOQUOTA being
toggled.
--b.
>
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
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
