From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id n0CNKfpo030171 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:20:45 -0600 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7C26B17DE4CA for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:09:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id xWRA3ZCihQbYgpoD for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:09:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:09:33 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: lockdep annotations for xfs_dqlock2 Message-ID: <20090112230933.GM8071@disturbed> References: <20090109221104.237540000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090109221300.520949000@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090111230637.GE8071@disturbed> <20090112151544.GA25507@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090112151544.GA25507@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:15:44AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:06:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > This looks a bit wierd. > > > > Yes, xfs_dqlock() is just a wrapper around mutex_lock, but we should > > be consistent here. Can you add a xfs_dqlock_nested() wrapper to do > > this? > > I don't think we should add more of the silly wrappers. What about > the version below that always uses plain mutex_lock* in xfs_dqlock2? Fair enough. > --- > > Subject: xfs: lockdep annotations for xfs_dqlock2 > From: Christoph Hellwig > > xfs_dqlock2 locks two xfs_dquots, which is fine as it always locks the > dquot with the lower id first. Use mutex_lock_nested to tell lockdep > about this fact. Also clean up xfs_dqlock2 a bit by rationalizing > the conditionals and always using the mutex_lock family of functions > directly. > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs