Am Montag, 27. November 2006 04:00 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > Second, instead of putting a lock in the buffer_collection you could just
> > > use the inode's lock.
> >
> > That's a layering violation.
>
> Your patch already uses inode->i_mutex. Does that mean it already
> contains a layering violation?
To protect inode->i_private.
> > Plus that lock is used for other things, plus it might be held a pretty long
> > time (eg the full control timeout)
>
> No -- the buffer's lock is used during data transfers. The only time the
> buffer_collection's lock might overlap a data transfer is during
> orphan_all_buffers(). Since that happens only when the inode is being
> removed anyway, I don't think it will hurt to tie up the inode's lock.
Yes, still, why meddle more than necessary in the vfs?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
