Re: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i_lock

[Nick Piggin]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:18:43AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 
> > Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set
> > before the inode was added to various lists and potentially
> > accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that
> > effect, right?
> 
> Yes, please.

This is due to i_lock not covering all the icache state of the inode,
so you have to make these synchronisation changes like this.

I much prefer such proposals to go at the end of my series, where I
will probably nack them (and use rcu instead if the remaining trylocks
are such a big issue).

--
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/