On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:59:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I think the locking here should be moved inside xfs_attr_get_int() > > Or we could just kill xfs_attr_get_int.. > > > so that it uses the same locking pattern as xfs_attr_set() and > > xfs_attr_remove(). > > > > Also, xfs_attr_list() needs this treatment (the attr version of > > readdir) as well (and it has the locking inside xfs_attr_list_int(), > > too ;). > > > > It looks like xfs_readlink needs fixing, too. > > Haven't really done an in-depth audit, mostly just looking at > where the asserts kick in.. Right - I just did a scan with cscope on the users of XFS_ILOCK_SHARED, and those two were the only ones that stuck out that weren't handled correctly.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
