From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l7NMpK4p005861 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:51:22 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:51:11 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: Need of inode->i_mutex in xfs_write() Message-ID: <20070823225111.GW72985246@sgi.com> References: <9ee2fe770708210826n5952e727od0df16a5a7b267f0@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9ee2fe770708210826n5952e727od0df16a5a7b267f0@mail.gmail.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: kanishk rastogi Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:11:56PM +0545, kanishk rastogi wrote: > I was looking at the xfs_write code path in kernel 2.6.20 ....... > I saw it acquiring inode->i_mutex . > Whats the need ? > What are we safegaurding inode for. See Documentation/filesystems/Locking and other files in that directory for what i_mutex is supposed to protect. XFS is different as it has it's own inodes and inode locks, but it still mostly uses i_mutex inteh accepted way. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group