On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:10:47AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Looks good, but can we add an assert to xfs_bunmapi() at the same > time just to cover all the public bmapi interfaces with locking > requirements? Sure, will do. Btw, I got another idea to sort this mess out a bit better: - add a new XFS_ILOCK_BMAP flag, and fold the bmap locking magic into xfs_ilock. - because the flag is now passed down we can assert that it is passed in xfs_bmapi_read and friends even if the extent list is already read in and thus improve coverage. The downside is another two branches in the common ilock code path. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
