[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: Convert to new freezing code

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: Convert to new freezing code
From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:32:20 +0200
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxx, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20120612142346.GA25132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1339510848-16992-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <1339510848-16992-19-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <20120612142346.GA25132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue 12-06-12 10:23:47, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +    * We will pass freeze protection with a transaction.  So tell lockdep
> > +    * we released it.
> > +    */
> > +   
> > rwsem_release(&ioend->io_inode->i_sb->s_writers.lock_map[SB_FREEZE_FS-1],
> > +                 1, _THIS_IP_);
> I'll need some time to get through the whole series, but repeated use
> of constructs like this really screams for a helper abstracting it out
> and documenting it.
  It's there twice and only in XFS because XFS needs to pass the freeze
protection (along with a transaction) to a worker thread. I'm not against a
helper but then it should probably be in a form to allow easy
instrumentation of lockdep that we are passing a state of lock together
with a work struct?

Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>