On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 07:37:17AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > I don't think this is quite right yet. The source inode locking > change is good, but it doesn't break the layout on the source inode > and so there is still they possibility that something has physical > access and is directly modifying the source file. > > And with that, I suspect the locking algorithm changes > substantially: > > order inodes > restart: > lock first inode > break layout on first inode > lock second inode > break layout on second inode > fail then unlock both inodes, goto restart Agreed, that is the locking scheme I'd expect.
