On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 05:50 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:40:53PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:05 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Use rwsem_is_locked to make the assertations for shared locks work.
> > So you're changing it so it answers "yes it's locked"
> > even it it's only a read lock now, right?
. . .
> > Now it's "If the exclusive flag is set, but no writer,
> > it's not locked. Otherwise if the shared flag is
> > set it's locked if rwsem_is_locked() says we are.
> > Otherwise (ASSERT(0) and) it is not locked."
> Not exactly. Now it's:
> - if excl is set but shared isn't return true if mr_writer is
> set, else false
> - if shared is set either alone or together with excl return
> if it is locked in any way (rwsem_is_locked).
OK, that makes sense, I get it now.
> Note that xfs_isilocked can be called like:
> ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED));
> which means that either excl or shared is fine.
> - if either one or both of excl and shared are set and it's
> > That last part is wrong I think. It should be OK to
> > call xfs_isilocked() with neither flag set, in which
> > case the result should be 0.
> We can argue about removing the assert, but we currently don't
> and should't call xfs_isilocked wit ha 0 argument - it's rather
> pointless to do so.
Yes, you're right. I'd still say the function should
return the right answer even if given an unreasonable
request. But that's being pedantic.
> > And if the exclusive
> > flag is set, and there *is* a writer, it *is* locked,
> > so it should return 1.
> We do that right now.
Yup. Thanks for setting me straight.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>