Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:42:45 +1000
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
To: Masayuki Saito <m-saito@tnes.nec.co.jp>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add new spin_lock for i_flags of xfs_inode [try #2]
Message-ID: <20060824154245.D3001216@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
References: <20060823201251m-saito@mail.aom.tnes.nec.co.jp> <20060823213817.16cdfe8a.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20060823213817.16cdfe8a.akpm@osdl.org>; from akpm@osdl.org on Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:38:17PM -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 993
Lines: 27

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:38:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:12:51 +0900
> Masayuki Saito <m-saito@tnes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > It is the problem that i_flags of xfs_inode has no consistent
> > locking protection.
> > 
> > For the reason, I define a new spin_lock(i_flags_lock) for i_flags
> > of xfs_inode.  And I add this spin_lock for appropriate places.
> 
> You could simply use inode.i_lock for this.  i_lock is a general-purpose
> per-inode lock.  Its mandate is "use it for whatever you like, but it must
> always be `innermost'"

Sounds spot on for our needs here, and has the added benefit of
not increasing the size of the inode (as well as not adding to
our locking complexity).  Thanks!

cheers.

-- 
Nathan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/