2018-03-02 02:02:31

by Changwei Ge

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Jun,
I think the comments for both two functions are OK.
No need to rework them.
As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including
block number.

Thanks,
Changw2ei

On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help
> fixing them all?
>
> thanks,
> Jun
>
> On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote:
>> The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
>> blockid first, not lockid.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>> index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644
>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>> @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
>> if (*bh2)
>> *bh2 = NULL;
>>
>> - /* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first.
>> + /* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first.
>> * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */
>> if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) {
>> inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno,
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>


2018-03-02 02:23:25

by piaojun

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Changwei,

On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote:
> Hi Jun,
> I think the comments for both two functions are OK.
> No need to rework them.
> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including
> block number.
I looked though the comments involved 'lockid', and found 'lockid' is a
concept in dlm level, so ocfs2 level should not be aware of it.

thanks,
Jun
>
> Thanks,
> Changw2ei
>
> On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote:
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help
>> fixing them all?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jun
>>
>> On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote:
>>> The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
>>> blockid first, not lockid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>> index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>> @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
>>> if (*bh2)
>>> *bh2 = NULL;
>>>
>>> - /* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first.
>>> + /* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first.
>>> * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */
>>> if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) {
>>> inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno,
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>>
> .
>

2018-03-02 02:41:01

by Larry Chen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Changwei and Jun,

Thanks for your advice.

On 03/02/2018 10:15 AM, piaojun wrote:
> Hi Changwei,
>
> On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote:
>> Hi Jun,
>> I think the comments for both two functions are OK.
>> No need to rework them.
>> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including
>> block number.
> I looked though the comments involved 'lockid', and found 'lockid' is a
> concept in dlm level, so ocfs2 level should not be aware of it.
When reading source code of ocfs2 level, you'll find that 'lockid' is a new
concept that has not occurred or be explained before.

It's kind of difficult to understand.

Maybe 'blockno' or 'blockid' is more sensible than 'lockid'

I'm willing to fix them all.

Thanks
Larry
> thanks,
> Jun
>> Thanks,
>> Changw2ei
>>
>> On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote:
>>> Hi Larry,
>>>
>>> There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help
>>> fixing them all?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Jun
>>>
>>> On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote:
>>>> The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
>>>> blockid first, not lockid.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>>> index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>>> @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
>>>> if (*bh2)
>>>> *bh2 = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> - /* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first.
>>>> + /* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first.
>>>> * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */
>>>> if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) {
>>>> inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno,
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>>>
>> .
>>