Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warnings related to lock context imbalance

[Dan Carpenter]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:45:24PM +0000, Patrick Farrell wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> I disagree about the change suggested here.  In this particular code,
> 'object_attr' is distinct from 'attr', as in a 'setattr' call on an
> inode.  'cl_object' is a distinct thing from an inode/file on disk,
> and specifying it is the objects attr is helpful in understanding
> there is not a direct relationship to 'attr' in the general filesystem
> sense.  (cl_object attrs are used in determining actual on disk
> attributes, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence.)
> 
> I am willing to be corrected, but that is my first feeling here.

I haven't looked at it deeply.  Loïc was suggesting that we need new
locking functions to deal with lustre's unwieldy naming schemes and I
think we should just fix the names...

We already have a cl_attr struct.  Is that different from what
we're locking here?  I don't think anyone will think this takes an inode
argument.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/