On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 12:30:15PM -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_attr.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c 2013-12-06 17:20:27.447331601 +0100
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c 2013-12-06 19:41:05.119158446 +0100
> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ xfs_attr_get(
> {
> int error;
> struct xfs_name xname;
> + uint lock_mode;
>
> XFS_STATS_INC(xs_attr_get);
>
> @@ -174,9 +175,9 @@ xfs_attr_get(
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
> + lock_mode = xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared(ip);
> error = xfs_attr_get_int(ip, &xname, value, valuelenp, flags);
> - xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
> + xfs_iunlock(ip, lock_mode);
> return(error);
> }
Yup, that should fix the assert problem. :)
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
