| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:10:55 -0800 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20131205210557.GF29897@dastard> |
| References: | <20131205155830.620826868@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131205155951.679310054@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131205205910.GD29897@dastard> <20131205210159.GA30318@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131205210557.GF29897@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:05:57AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Haven't really done an in-depth audit, mostly just looking at > > where the asserts kick in.. > > Right - I just did a scan with cscope on the users of > XFS_ILOCK_SHARED, and those two were the only ones that stuck out > that weren't handled correctly.... With MAXPATHLEN at 1024 a symlink is at max 2 extents and thus never in btree format, so I don't think we'll need it in readlink. The attr cases look real, though. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: assert that we hold the ilock for extent map access, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |