Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030283AbWHXFqg (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:46:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030289AbWHXFqg (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:46:36 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:13260 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030283AbWHXFqf (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:46:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:46:18 +1000 From: Nathan Scott To: Masayuki Saito , Andrew Morton Cc: David Chinner , 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: <20060824154618.E3001216@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20060823201251m-saito@mail.aom.tnes.nec.co.jp> <20060823213817.16cdfe8a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060824154245.D3001216@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20060824154245.D3001216@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>; from nathans@sgi.com on Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:45PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1357 Lines: 33 On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 03:42:45PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:38:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:12:51 +0900 > > Masayuki Saito 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! Oh, except that the generic inode has a different lifecycle to the xfs_inode_t, which is going to prevent using this. Doh. I had also looked at the other xfs_inode locks before, but not seen an easy way to piggyback on those... perhaps a way could be found though. 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/