On 2018/3/1 15:00, Lei Chen wrote:
> Hi Changwei,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> I think the original comment is not as clear as you said since
> the code does not reflect any relation between lockid and blockid.
>
> Besides, the function inside indeed uses the block number for
> comparision. And it's really misleading for new beginners ,emmmm, like me.
It's OK. Any behavior to fix, improve ocfs2 is encouraged.
-Changwei
>
> :)
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>>>> Changwei Ge <ge.chang...@h3c.com> 2018-3-1 上午 8:37 >>>
> Hi Larry,
>
> On 2018/2/28 18:18, Larry Chen wrote:
> > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
> > blockid first, not lockid.
>
> As ocfs2's lock name includes block number, so I think the comment you want to
> rework is all right.
> So nack.
>
> Thanks,
> Changwei
>
> >
> > 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
