Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Changwei Ge
2018-03-02T02:39:46Z

Hi Jun,

On 2018/3/2 10:16, piaojun wrote:
> Hi Changwei,
>
> On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote:
>> Hi Jun,
>> I think the comments for both two functions are OK.
>> No need to rework them.
>> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including
>> block number.
> I looked though the comments involved 'lockid', and found 'lockid' is a
> concept in dlm level, so ocfs2 level should not be aware of it.
I don't agree.
Please refer to ocfs2_build_lock_name().
DLM should not know how ocfs2 distinguishes objects it wants to protected.
Moreover, ocfs2 has a abstraction layer called dlmglue.

-Changwei

>
> thanks,
> Jun
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Changw2ei
>>
>> On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote:
>>> Hi Larry,
>>>
>>> There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help
>>> fixing them all?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Jun
>>>
>>> On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote:
>>>> The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
>>>> blockid first, not lockid.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <lchen@suse.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>>> index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c
>>>> @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb,
>>>> if (*bh2)
>>>> *bh2 = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> - /* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first.
>>>> + /* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first.
>>>> * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */
>>>> if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) {
>>>> inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno,
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ocfs2-devel mailing list
>>> Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
>>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>>>
>> .
>>
>