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 88EFC7F6D for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:22:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C91304062 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:22:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id yBJsNFre1cKQlYbA (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:22:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:22:19 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: assert that we hold the ilock for extent map access Message-ID: <20131205212219.GA12602@infradead.org> References: <20131205155830.620826868@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131205155951.874279041@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131205211047.GG29897@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131205211047.GG29897@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 08:10:47AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Looks good, but can we add an assert to xfs_bunmapi() at the same > time just to cover all the public bmapi interfaces with locking > requirements? Sure, will do. Btw, I got another idea to sort this mess out a bit better: - add a new XFS_ILOCK_BMAP flag, and fold the bmap locking magic into xfs_ilock. - because the flag is now passed down we can assert that it is passed in xfs_bmapi_read and friends even if the extent list is already read in and thus improve coverage. The downside is another two branches in the common ilock code path. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs