From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs: assert that we hold the ilock for extent map access
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 08:40:29 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131205214029.GI29897@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131205212219.GA12602@infradead.org>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:22:19PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
Hmmm - I'm not sure I can see how that would work - the checks on
lock mode look at the lock directly, not at some other flag register
to indicate the locking context....
Are you thinking of expanding the code in xfs_isilocked() to handle
this as well?
And what do we do with the unlock case, as we can't tell after the
fact from the inode state whether we locked shared or excl because
the extent list has now been read in....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-05 21:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-05 15:58 [PATCH 0/5] extent list locking fixes Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 15:58 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: take the ilock around xfs_bmapi_read in xfs_zero_remaining_bytes Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 19:38 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-05 20:31 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 20:37 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-05 20:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 15:58 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_qm_dqtobp Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 19:46 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-05 20:41 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 20:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 21:03 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 15:58 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_qm_dqiterate Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 19:48 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-05 20:45 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 15:58 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: use xfs_ilock_map_shared in xfs_attr_get Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 19:57 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-05 20:59 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 21:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 21:05 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 21:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 21:17 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 15:58 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: assert that we hold the ilock for extent map access Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 20:11 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-05 21:10 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-05 21:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-05 21:40 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131205214029.GI29897@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox