Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Christoph Hellwig
Date: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 2:55 pm

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:59:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Yes, you would.  Except that in all other places we only have a single
iolock involved, so the ordering of the second iolock and second ilock
don't matter.

Because of that I think declaring that xfs_lock_two_inodes can just
lock on lock type at a time might be the better solution.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Daniel J Blueman, (Fri Aug 22, 2:12 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Dave Chinner, (Sun Aug 24, 6:02 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Lachlan McIlroy, (Sun Aug 24, 7:12 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Dave Chinner, (Sun Aug 24, 8:55 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Peter Zijlstra, (Sun Aug 24, 11:57 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Peter Zijlstra, (Sun Aug 24, 11:59 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 25, 2:55 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Dave Chinner, (Mon Aug 25, 6:55 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Dave Chinner, (Mon Aug 25, 7:45 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Christoph Hellwig, (Tue Aug 26, 12:35 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Daniel J Blueman, (Tue Aug 26, 1:13 pm)
Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock..., Daniel J Blueman, (Tue Aug 26, 2:34 pm)