>  
> +int
> +xfs_break_layouts(
> +     struct inode            *inode,
> +     uint                    *iolock,
> +     unsigned long           flags)
> +{
> +     struct xfs_inode        *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> +     uint                    iolock_assert = 0;
> +     int                     ret = 0;
> +
> +     if (flags & XFS_BREAK_REMOTE)
> +             iolock_assert |= XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED|XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
> +     if (flags & XFS_BREAK_MAPS)
> +             iolock_assert |= XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL;
> +
> +     ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, iolock_assert));
> +
> +     if (flags & XFS_BREAK_REMOTE)
> +             ret = xfs_break_leased_layouts(inode, iolock);
> +     return ret;

This just looks weird as hell.  We already pass in what to drop/reacquire
in the iolock argument.  I don't think we need another argument controlled
by the same callers to assert it.

> @@ -768,7 +790,7 @@ xfs_file_fallocate(
>       struct xfs_inode        *ip = XFS_I(inode);
>       long                    error;
>       enum xfs_prealloc_flags flags = 0;
> -     uint                    iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
> +     uint                    iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL|XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL;

This is a behavior change that should not be in a patch titled
"prepare xfs_break_layouts() for another layout type" but in one
explicitly changing this and documenting why.

In summary:  I think this should be replaced with a patch that
allows xfs_break_layouts to be called with the mmap lock held, and
change the callers that want the mmap lock to pass it with a good
explanation, and we should get rid of the XFS_BREAK_* flags here.
(need to check the next patch if there is any other good reason for
them to be added later, though).
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

Reply via email to