| 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?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: Convert to new freezing code, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 0/2] Add FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE to fallocate, Paolo Bonzini |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 18/27] xfs: Convert to new freezing code, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 0/2] Add FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE to fallocate, Paolo Bonzini |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |