From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p81Le06W041086 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:40:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:39:57 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] xfs: remove the unlock argument to xfs_buf_delwri_queue Message-ID: <20110901213957.GA4579@infradead.org> References: <20110823082802.335389799@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110823082912.127871770@bombadil.infradead.org> <1314904924.2903.60.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1314904924.2903.60.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 02:22:04PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 04:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > We can just unlock the buffer in the caller, and the decrement of b_hold > > would also be needed in the !unlock, we just never hit that case currently > > given that the caller handles that case. > > More specifically, the only way we'd hit that case would > involve an unqueued buffer (in xfs_buf_unlock()) getting > queued before bt_delwrite_lock could be acquired (in > xfs_buf_delwri_queue()). But that can't happen because > the buffer is locked the entire time between the check > in xfs_buf_unlock() and the one in xfs_buf_delwri_queue(). > (Right?) Exactly. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs