On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 07:33:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Hmmmm, looking closer at xfs_defer_finish(), just holding the buffer > here isn't sufficient. xfs_defer_finish() can roll the transaction a > number of times and holding the buffer is a one-shot deal. Hence the > buffer held buffer will have BLI_HOLD removed on the next commit > and be unlocked by the second commit, whether it be inside > xfs_defer_finish() or the roll that occurs below. > > ISTR a previous discussion with Darrick that we needed something > like xfs_defer_join() with buffers instead of inodes to allow them > to be held across a call to xfs_defer_finish().... We do. I actually have patches lying around that remove the xfs_trans_roll and xfs_defer_finish inode arguments, and instead have a separate helper for rolling over an inode and adding an inode to the defer list. I've not added a magic helper for buffers yet, but that would be a natural fit into that model. -- 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
