Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:08:46 -0800
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 07/12] fs: Add locking for a dynamic inode 'mode'
Message-ID: <20200115190846.GE23311@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
References: <20200110192942.25021-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20200110192942.25021-8-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20200113221218.GM8247@magnolia>
 <20200114002005.GA29860@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20200114010322.GS8247@magnolia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200114010322.GS8247@magnolia>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:03:22PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 04:20:05PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 02:12:18PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:29:37AM -0800, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>

[snip]

> > > > +``lock_mode``
> > > > +	called to prevent operations which depend on the inode's mode from
> > > > +        proceeding should a mode change be in progress
> > > 
> > > "Inodes can't change mode, because files do not suddenly become
> > > directories". ;)
> > 
> > Yea sorry.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Oh, you meant "lock_XXXX is called to prevent a change in the pagecache
> > > mode from proceeding while there are address space operations in
> > > progress".  So these are really more aops get and put functions...
> > 
> > At first I actually did have aops get/put functions but this is really
> > protecting more than the aops vector because as Christoph said there are file
> > operations which need to be protected not just address space operations.
> > 
> > But I agree "mode" is a bad name...  Sorry...
> 
> inode_fops_{get,set}(), then?
> 
> inode_start_fileop()
> inode_end_fileop() ?
> 
> Trying to avoid sounding foppish <COUGH>

What about?

inode_[un]lock_state()?

Ira