From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE157F75 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:40:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83DB130407E for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:40:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id A0yLj5gUEArmgmyR (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:40:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:40:08 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: take the ilock around xfs_bmapi_read in xfs_zero_remaining_bytes Message-ID: <20131205204008.GA7686@infradead.org> References: <20131205155830.620826868@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131205155951.199565525@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131205203115.GA29897@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131205203115.GA29897@dastard> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:31:15AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > This now holds the ilock over data IO, which is not allowed to be > done as data IO completion can require the ilock to be taken. Yes, > the code specifically avoids all these problems, but the general > rule is that ilock is only held over metadata IO operations, not > data IO. If we need data IO serialisation, then we use the iolock. And we already hold the iolock here. So yeah, we probably should just move it to protect the xfs_bmapi_read call only. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs