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 480A17F5E for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:02:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D22304097 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 054YZJsZZli4fWhR (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:02:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:01:59 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get Message-ID: <20131205210159.GA30318@infradead.org> References: <20131205155830.620826868@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131205155951.679310054@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131205205910.GD29897@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131205205910.GD29897@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 07:59:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > I think the locking here should be moved inside xfs_attr_get_int() Or we could just kill xfs_attr_get_int.. > so that it uses the same locking pattern as xfs_attr_set() and > xfs_attr_remove(). > > Also, xfs_attr_list() needs this treatment (the attr version of > readdir) as well (and it has the locking inside xfs_attr_list_int(), > too ;). > > It looks like xfs_readlink needs fixing, too. Haven't really done an in-depth audit, mostly just looking at where the asserts kick in.. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs