From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q92LDgVV087092 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:13:42 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tXJcjAkA1Dbzehcw for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <506B58F7.1020002@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:13:27 -0400 From: Brian Foster MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant. References: <1348807485-20165-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1348807485-20165-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <5069F9B0.50804@redhat.com> <20121002001021.GJ23520@dastard> <506A38D1.6090204@redhat.com> <506AE5AD.60509@redhat.com> <20121002205124.GS23520@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20121002205124.GS23520@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 Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 10/02/2012 04:51 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:01:33AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> On 10/01/2012 08:44 PM, Brian Foster wrote: >>> On 10/01/2012 08:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> ... >>> ... > > I don't think we can do an unconditional down_read() there, as the > caller from xfs_create() already holds an i_mutex (the VFS holds the > directory inode lock) and I'm pretty sure that s_umount is supposed > to be outside per-inode locks. > > Given that where we are called we are inside a transaction for the > create case, and inside mnt_want_write() protection for the buffered > write case, the likelyhood of s_umount being held for write at > ENOSPC is going to be non-existent at these call sites. Hence a > down_read_trylock() will avoid lock ordering issues, but will almost > always succeed and so be equivalent to down_read().... > Ok... > /me modifies and runs 273 and the enospc xfstests group... > > Seems to work just fine, and no warnings. Patch below. > This passes 273 clean (save the xlog_verify_grant_tail message) for me as well. Thanks. Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs