Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:42:18 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: generic_osync_inode() broken? |
| |
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.
Ok, me again.
The inode->i_state locking is rather nasty: there is no need to lock the inode. We just have to wait for it to become unlocked, since its guaranteed that who locked it wrote it to disk. (sync_one())
Aviro suggested the following, which is much cleaner than the previous patch:
--- fs/inode.c~ Thu Apr 12 21:15:23 2001 +++ fs/inode.c Thu Apr 12 21:16:35 2001 @@ -301,6 +301,8 @@ while (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) sync_one(inode, sync); spin_unlock(&inode_lock); + if (sync) + wait_on_inode(inode); } else printk("write_inode_now: no super block\n"); @@ -357,6 +359,7 @@ out: spin_unlock(&inode_lock); + wait_on_inode(inode); return err; } - 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/
| |