Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:19:14 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: generic_osync_inode() broken? |
| |
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > --- fs/inode.c~ Thu Mar 22 16:04:13 2001 > > > +++ fs/inode.c Thu Apr 12 15:18:22 2001 > > > @@ -347,6 +347,11 @@ > > > #endif > > > > > > spin_lock(&inode_lock); > > > + while (inode->i_state & I_LOCK) { > > > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > > > + __wait_on_inode(inode); > > > + spin_lock(&inode_lock); > > > + } > > > if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY)) > > > goto out; > > > if (datasync && !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC)) > > > > Ehh. > > > > Why not just lock the inode around the thing? > > > > The above looks rather ugly. > > You mean writing a function called "lock_inode()" or whatever to basically > do what I did ?
Oh well, its still bad.
We drop the inode_lock before calling write_inode_now() (which is broken, too :)), which means someone can set I_LOCK under us.
I'll send you a patch to fix that one (and other callers of write_inode_now()) later.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |