From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m3TLT55r028714 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:29:07 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:29:43 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: review: s/i_flags_lock/i_inner_lock/g Message-ID: <20080429212942.GQ108924158@sgi.com> References: <4816AEEB.8090907@sgi.com> <20080429053757.GA30708@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080429053757.GA30708@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Timothy Shimmin , xfs-dev , xfs-oss On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:37:57AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:15:23PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > As part of future plans to cache incore versions of acls > > off the inode, we want to protect its modification by a spin lock. > > Dave suggested that we use the i_flags_lock but rename it to > > reflect its more general purpose on other fields, such as "i_inner_lock". > > This patch is then basically s/i_flags_lock/i_inner_lock/g. > > Not too happpy about that, as I'd rather kill this lock in it's current > form and use atomic bitops on the flags. I'd rather use i_lock in the > Linux inode for the ACLs. The problem with that is that some of the flags work together and can't be used as separate bitops. eg. xfs_finish_reclaim() and xfs_iget_core(). Hence they currently need to be protected by a spinlock. Also, protecting something in the XFs inode with the linux inode lock could have issues with the lifecycle differences between the inodes. Just something to be careful of.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group