ping? Would be nice to get this into 3.14 On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:14:59AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I've been trying to fix the old splice iolock lock inversion issue in XFS > and started looking over the splice code a little more for it. It seems > like the root of all evil is that we try to nest i_mutex inside the > pipe_lock instead of outside of it, and I can't find any good reason for > that. Does anyone remember why it went this way initially? > > By fixing that and a few minor issues we can not only fix this issue nicely > in XFS, but also get rid of various bits of code duplication, and poking into > splice internals by the ocfs2 splice_write path. > > Btw, does anyone have a good test suite for splice functionality? xfstests > coverage exits but is not very extensive. > > b/fs/ocfs2/file.c | 2 > b/fs/splice.c | 5 +- > b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 26 +++++----- > b/include/linux/splice.h | 2 > fs/ocfs2/file.c | 78 +++++++++---------------------- > fs/splice.c | 115 +++++++++++++---------------------------------- > include/linux/splice.h | 7 -- > 7 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-) > -- > 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 ---end quoted text--- -- 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
