| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 6 Dec 2013 08:05:57 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20131205210159.GA30318@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20131205155830.620826868@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131205155951.679310054@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131205205910.GD29897@dastard> <20131205210159.GA30318@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:01:59PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:59:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I think the locking here should be moved inside xfs_attr_get_int() > > Or we could just kill xfs_attr_get_int.. > > > so that it uses the same locking pattern as xfs_attr_set() and > > xfs_attr_remove(). > > > > Also, xfs_attr_list() needs this treatment (the attr version of > > readdir) as well (and it has the locking inside xfs_attr_list_int(), > > too ;). > > > > It looks like xfs_readlink needs fixing, too. > > 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.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_qm_dqtobp, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |