| To: | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock... |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:55:32 +0200 |
| Cc: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1219647573.20732.28.camel@twins> |
| References: | <6278d2220808221412x28f4ac5dl508884c8030b364a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080825010213.GO5706@disturbed> <48B21507.9050708@xxxxxxx> <20080825035542.GR5706@disturbed> <1219647573.20732.28.camel@twins> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:59:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > How can you take two locks in one go? It seems to me you always need to > take them one after another, and as soon as you do that, you have > ordering constraints. Yes, you would. Except that in all other places we only have a single iolock involved, so the ordering of the second iolock and second ilock don't matter. Because of that I think declaring that xfs_lock_two_inodes can just lock on lock type at a time might be the better solution. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: XFS internal error, Allan Haywood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | XFS_BUF_ORDERED instead of XFS_BUF_ISORDERED?, Nathaniel W. Turner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Peter Zijlstra |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |