From: Alex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: improve xfs_isilocked
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:40:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1275075653.2302.38.camel@doink> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527190533.GB16102@infradead.org>
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:05 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Use rwsem_is_locked to make the assertations for shared locks work.
So you're changing it so it answers "yes it's locked"
even it it's only a read lock now, right?
Previously it was basically (once each for ilock and
iolock): "If the exclusive flag is set, but there is no
writer, then it is not locked; otherwise it is."
Now it's "If the exclusive flag is set, but no writer,
it's not locked. Otherwise if the shared flag is
set it's locked if rwsem_is_locked() says we are.
Otherwise (ASSERT(0) and) it is not locked."
That last part is wrong I think. It should be OK to
call xfs_isilocked() with neither flag set, in which
case the result should be 0. And if the exclusive
flag is set, and there *is* a writer, it *is* locked,
so it should return 1.
-Alex
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2010-05-25 11:40:59.216005587 +0200
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2010-05-27 20:59:09.244004330 +0200
> @@ -740,30 +738,24 @@ xfs_ilock_demote(
> }
>
> #ifdef DEBUG
> -/*
> - * Debug-only routine, without additional rw_semaphore APIs, we can
> - * now only answer requests regarding whether we hold the lock for write
> - * (reader state is outside our visibility, we only track writer state).
> - *
> - * Note: this means !xfs_isilocked would give false positives, so don't do that.
> - */
> int
> xfs_isilocked(
> xfs_inode_t *ip,
> uint lock_flags)
> {
> - if ((lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) ==
> - XFS_ILOCK_EXCL) {
> - if (!ip->i_lock.mr_writer)
> - return 0;
> + if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
> + if (!(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED))
> + return !!ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
> + return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock);
> }
>
> - if ((lock_flags & (XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL|XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED)) ==
> - XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL) {
> - if (!ip->i_iolock.mr_writer)
> - return 0;
> + if (lock_flags & (XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL|XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED)) {
> + if (!(lock_flags & XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED))
> + return !!ip->i_iolock.mr_writer;
> + return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_iolock.mr_lock);
> }
>
> - return 1;
> + ASSERT(0);
> + return 0;
> }
> #endif
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-28 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-27 19:05 [PATCH] xfs: improve xfs_isilocked Christoph Hellwig
2010-05-28 19:40 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2010-05-29 9:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-03 16:19 ` Alex Elder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1275075653.2302.38.camel@doink \
--to=aelder@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox