On Thu, 3 November 2011 12:02:57 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:00:46 +0100 Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 November 2011 14:10:00 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the logfs tree got a conflict in
> > > fs/logfs/file.c between commit 02c24a82187d ("fs: push i_mutex and
> > > filemap_write_and_wait down into ->fsync() handlers") from Linus' tree
> > > and commit 39da12ef4bbe ("logfs: take write mutex lock during fsync and
> > > sync") from the logfs tree.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what needs to be done here. I fixed it like below to make
> > > it build, but a better fix is needed.
> >
> > From a code perspective your fix below is correct, to the best of my
> > judgement. I'm less sure what to do from a git perspective.
> > Explicitly tell Linus about it in the logfs pull request?
>
> I was concered about the locking order (or if both locks were needed at
> all). And, yes, tell Linus.
Locking order should be fine. Whether both locks are needed is a
valid question. I suspect the answer is yes.
Jörn
--
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
