From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] fs: Reduce inode I_FREEING and factor inode disposal Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:49:23 +1100 Message-ID: <20101017024923.GA6453@amd> References: <1287216853-17634-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1287216853-17634-18-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101017013047.GA4394@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101017013047.GA4394@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:30:47PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock. > > * > > + * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock. > > + * > > No need to repeat, we got it.. Except that I didn't see where you fixed all the places where it is *not* the innermost lock. Like for example places that take dcache_lock inside i_lock. Really, the assertions that my series is causing the world to end because it makes i_lock no longer the innermost lock (not that it is anyway) etc. is just not constructive in the slightest. A lock is a lock. If we take another lock inside it, it is not an innermost lock. If we do it properly and don't introduce deadlocks, it is not a bug.