Re: [PATCH] Change ll_rw_block() calls in JBD

[Stephen C. Tweedie]

Hi,

On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 15:45 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

>   Yes, I'm aware of this problem. Actually I wrote a patch (attached) for it
> some time ago but as I'm checking current kernels it got lost somewhere on
> the way. I'll rediff it and submit again. Thanks for spotting the
> problem.

...
> 
> +               was_dirty = buffer_dirty(bh);
> +               if (was_dirty && test_set_buffer_locked(bh)) {

The way was_dirty is used here seems confusing and hard to read; there
are completely separate code paths for dirty and non-dirty, lockable and
already-locked buffers, with all the paths interleaved to share a few
common bits of locking.  It would be far more readable with any sharable
locking code simply removed to a separate function (such as we already
have for inverted_lock(), for example), and the different dirty/clean
logic laid out separately.  Otherwise the code is littered with 

> +                       if (was_dirty)
> +                               unlock_buffer(bh);

and it's not obvious at any point just what locks are held.

Having said that, it looks like it should work --- it just took more
effort than it should have to check!

--Stephen


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/