On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:58:33AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We might not have read in the extent list at this point, so make sure we
> take the ilock exclusively if we have to do so.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>
> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c 2013-11-18 14:39:01.967589998 +0100
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c 2013-12-05 12:32:36.623617997 +0100
> @@ -1193,16 +1193,18 @@ xfs_qm_dqiterate(
> lblkno = 0;
> maxlblkcnt = XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, mp->m_super->s_maxbytes);
> do {
> + uint lock_mode;
> +
> nmaps = XFS_DQITER_MAP_SIZE;
> /*
> * We aren't changing the inode itself. Just changing
> * some of its data. No new blocks are added here, and
> * the inode is never added to the transaction.
> */
> - xfs_ilock(qip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
> + lock_mode = xfs_ilock_map_shared(qip);
> error = xfs_bmapi_read(qip, lblkno, maxlblkcnt - lblkno,
> map, &nmaps, 0);
> - xfs_iunlock(qip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
> + xfs_iunlock_map_shared(qip, lock_mode);
> if (error)
> break;
There's no bug here - this comes from quotacheck, which is
guaranteed to have exclusive access to the filesystem at this point.
Hence there's no-one to race with reading the extent list. Still, it
doesn't hurt.
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
