Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:11:29 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: push the ilock into xfs_zero_eof
Message-ID: <20120327061129.GY5091@dastard>
References: <20120326211421.518374058@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20120326211603.654869525@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20120327011540.GS5091@dastard>
 <20120327054827.GA11976@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120327054827.GA11976@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:48:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:15:40PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > +	xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > >  	error = xfs_bmapi_read(ip, last_fsb, 1, &imap, &nimaps, 0);
> > > +	xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > 
> > Does that even need to be an exclusive lock? a shared lock is all
> > that is needed to do a lookup, and this is just a lookup...
> 
> It has to be a xfs_ilock_map_shared - but given that we hold the iolock
> exclusive anyway I didn't bother to optimize this further.

Ok, makes sense.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com