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 <lc...@suse.com>
> ---
> 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,
>
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
