> +xfs_lock_two_inodes_separately(
> + struct xfs_inode *ip0,
> + uint ip0_mode,
> + struct xfs_inode *ip1,
> + uint ip1_mode)
We only have 6 calls to xfs_lock_two_inodes in total, so just update
the signature to take two modes and be done with it.
Also how about mode1 and mode2 for the argument names?
> lp = (xfs_log_item_t *)ip0->i_itemp;
> if (lp && (lp->li_flags & XFS_LI_IN_AIL)) {
> - if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip1, xfs_lock_inumorder(lock_mode, 1))) {
> - xfs_iunlock(ip0, lock_mode);
> + if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip1, xfs_lock_inumorder(ip1_mode, 1))) {
> + xfs_iunlock(ip0, ip0_mode);
> if ((++attempts % 5) == 0)
> delay(1); /* Don't just spin the CPU */
> goto again;
> }
> } else {
> - xfs_ilock(ip1, xfs_lock_inumorder(lock_mode, 1));
> + xfs_ilock(ip1, xfs_lock_inumorder(ip1_mode, 1));
> }
> }
Not directly related to your patch, but the the nowait + retry
mess must go away.
I think we need to move to the VFS locking conventions, that is
based on ancestors for directories (see lock_rename) and otherwise
based on the struct inode address as in lock_two_nondirectories.
> if (src_last)
> - inode_lock_nested(src, I_MUTEX_NONDIR2);
> + down_read_nested(&src->i_rwsem, I_MUTEX_NONDIR2);
Why is this not using inode_lock_nested any more?
--
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
