From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE5B7F4E for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 05:44:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC08AC004 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id IkLzukVfuXlFHL5v (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 03:44:28 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] xfs: add scan owner field to xfs_eofblocks Message-ID: <20140527104428.GC1440@infradead.org> References: <1400845950-41435-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <1400845950-41435-2-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1400845950-41435-2-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.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: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 07:52:28AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > The scan owner field represents an optional inode number that is > responsible for the current scan. The purpose is to identify that an > inode is under iolock and as such, the iolock shouldn't be attempted > when trimming eofblocks. This is an internal only field. xfs_free_eofblocks already does a trylock, and without that calling it from one iolock holding process to another would be a deadlock waiting to happen. I have to say I'm still not very easy with iolock nesting, even if it's a trylock. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs