Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error
To:     piaojun <piaojun@huawei.com>, Changwei Ge <ge.changwei@h3c.com>,
        "mfasheh@versity.com" <mfasheh@versity.com>,
        "jlbec@evilplan.org" <jlbec@evilplan.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com>
References: <20180228101720.20725-1-lchen@suse.com>
 <5A97F88E.4010303@huawei.com>
 <63ADC13FD55D6546B7DECE290D39E373F292C0FC@H3CMLB12-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com>
 <5A98B3BB.3040408@huawei.com>
From:   Larry Chen <lchen@suse.com>
Message-ID: <40b08149-1a35-0dcc-116a-9df71b629950@suse.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:37:04 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5A98B3BB.3040408@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 <lchen@suse.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    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
>>> Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
>>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>>>
>> .
>>