On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 02:22:04PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 04:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > We can just unlock the buffer in the caller, and the decrement of b_hold > > would also be needed in the !unlock, we just never hit that case currently > > given that the caller handles that case. > > More specifically, the only way we'd hit that case would > involve an unqueued buffer (in xfs_buf_unlock()) getting > queued before bt_delwrite_lock could be acquired (in > xfs_buf_delwri_queue()). But that can't happen because > the buffer is locked the entire time between the check > in xfs_buf_unlock() and the one in xfs_buf_delwri_queue(). > (Right?) Exactly. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
