From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o0BAK0Mp129943 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:20:01 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0A8111357D68 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:20:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 0RPMs6hOQqfknogI for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:20:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:20:55 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: Remove inode iolock held check during allocation Message-ID: <20100111102055.GD26465@infradead.org> References: <1263167508-9346-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1263167508-9346-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1263167508-9346-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:51:48AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > lockdep complains about a the lock not being initialised as we do > an ASSERT based check that the lock is not held before we initialise > it to catch inodes freed with the lock held. > > lockdep does this check for us in the lock initialisation code, so > remove the ASSERT to stop the lockdep warning. Yes, checking things on the lock before it's initialized is always a bad idea. I think this is my fault because I moved the iolock initialization from the inode_init_always path into the inode_init_once path. Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs