Re: [PATCH 04/17] fs: icache lock i_state

[Christoph Hellwig]

> +		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> +		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)
> +				|| inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {


This is some pretty strange formatting.

		if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) ||
		    inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0) {

would be more standard.

>  	list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
>  		struct address_space *mapping;
>  
> -		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW))
> -			continue;
>  		mapping = inode->i_mapping;
>  		if (mapping->nrpages == 0)
>  			continue;
> +		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> +		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) {
> +			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> +			continue;
> +		}

Can we access the mapping safely when the inode isn't actually fully
setup?  Even if we can I'd rather not introduce this change hidden
inside an unrelated patch.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/