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 8030B29DF9 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:54:50 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C82B30407B for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:54:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:54:44 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] extent list locking fixes V2 Message-ID: <20131206175444.GA25669@infradead.org> References: <20131206164819.371654241@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131206173729.GR1935@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131206173729.GR1935@sgi.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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 11:37:29AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Christoph, > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:48:19AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Fixed the review feedback, and includes Bens original patch for completeness. > > I ran your initial series overnight with xfstests... oddly I hit this: I think I understand the problem: uint xfs_ilock_map_shared( xfs_inode_t *ip) { uint lock_mode; if ((ip->i_d.di_format == XFS_DINODE_FMT_BTREE) && ((ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS) == 0)) { lock_mode = XFS_ILOCK_EXCL; } else { lock_mode = XFS_ILOCK_SHARED; } xfs_ilock(ip, lock_mode); return lock_mode; } This only looks at the data fork, while we'd need to use it for the fork we plan to operate on. Looks like we'll need some bigger surgery this area. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs