From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031035AbeCANF5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 08:05:57 -0500 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:5721 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030515AbeCAM5K (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 07:57:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error To: Larry Chen , , References: <20180228101720.20725-1-lchen@suse.com> CC: , From: piaojun Message-ID: <5A97F88E.4010303@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:56:46 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180228101720.20725-1-lchen@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.253.249] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Larry, There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help fixing them all? thanks, Jun On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote: > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower > blockid first, not lockid. > > Signed-off-by: Larry Chen > --- > fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb, > if (*bh2) > *bh2 = NULL; > > - /* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first. > + /* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first. > * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */ > if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) { > inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno, > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: piaojun Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:56:46 +0800 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error In-Reply-To: <20180228101720.20725-1-lchen@suse.com> References: <20180228101720.20725-1-lchen@suse.com> Message-ID: <5A97F88E.4010303@huawei.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Larry Chen , mfasheh@versity.com, jlbec@evilplan.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Hi Larry, There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you help fixing them all? thanks, Jun On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote: > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower > blockid first, not lockid. > > Signed-off-by: Larry Chen > --- > fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > index c801eddc4bf3..30d454de35a8 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c > @@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@ static int ocfs2_double_lock(struct ocfs2_super *osb, > if (*bh2) > *bh2 = NULL; > > - /* we always want to lock the one with the lower lockid first. > + /* we always want to lock the one with the lower blockid first. > * and if they are nested, we lock ancestor first */ > if (oi1->ip_blkno != oi2->ip_blkno) { > inode1_is_ancestor = ocfs2_check_if_ancestor(osb, oi2->ip_blkno, >