On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 12:32:59PM -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote: > On 5/6/22 2:29 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 02:21:17PM -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote: > >> On 4/28/22 2:54 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:58:59PM -0700, Stefan Roesch wrote: > >> - replace the pointer to iocb with pointer to xfs_inode in the function xfs_ilock_iocb() > >> and also pass in the flags value as a parameter. > >> or > >> - create function xfs_ilock_inode(), which xfs_ilock_iocb() calls. The existing > >> calls will not need to change, only the xfs_ilock in xfs_file_buffered_write() > >> will use xfs_ilock_inode(). > > > > You're making this way more complex than it needs to be. As I said: > > > >>> Regardless, if this is a problem, then just pass the XFS inode to > >>> xfs_ilock_iocb() and this is a moot point. > > > > The function xfs_ilock_iocb() is expecting a pointer to the data structure kiocb, not > a pointer to xfs_inode. I don't see how that's possible without changing the signature > of xfs_ilock_iocb(). For the *third time*: pass the xfs_inode to xfs_ilock_iocb() and update all the callers to do the same thing. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
