Re: [RFC PATCH v1 29/30] fs: track whether the i_version has been queried with an i_state flag

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 11:03 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21 2016, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 
> > @@ -2072,7 +2093,12 @@ inode_cmp_iversion(const struct inode *inode, const u64 old)
> >  static inline bool
> >  inode_iversion_need_inc(struct inode *inode)
> >  {
> > -	return true;
> > +	bool ret;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > +	ret = inode->i_state & I_VERS_BUMP;
> > +	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> 
> I know this code gets removed, so this isn't really important.
> By why do you take the spinlock here?  What are you racing again?
> 
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown

I think I was worried about I_VERS_BUMP being set or cleared during an
increment or query. It is quite possible that that spinlock is not
necessary.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux