> }
> #endif
> +
> +static inline void
> +xfs_clear_li_failed(
> + struct xfs_log_item *lip)
> +{
> + struct xfs_buf *bp = lip->li_buf;
> +
> + ASSERT(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_IN_AIL);
> + lockdep_assert_held(&lip->li_ailp->xa_lock);
> +
> + if (lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
> + lip->li_flags &= ~XFS_LI_FAILED;
> + lip->li_buf = NULL;
> + xfs_buf_rele(bp);
This means we now nest pag->pag_buf_lock and bp->b_lock inside
ailp->xa_lock. I couldn't find any place where we take
it in a different order, but it makes me feel a little nervous.
Also I think the set/clear failed helper might better be out of line
instead of bloating the callers.
Except for that the patch looks fine to me.
--
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
