Hello,
On Sunday 30 July 2006 10:17, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 30/07/06, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > Thanks. That's a nice little test suite.
> >
> > Yes, it is quite useful, our developers have added it to the
> > regression suite....
>
> That's nice.
>
> Now how about that lock validator message I managed to tease out?
>
> Akpm said "... the reiserfs locking appears to be unneeded - this
> inode is going down and nobody else can look it up, so what is to be
> locked against?" - can you comment on that?
Thanks. it is correct.
Andrew, please apply the following patch:
i_mutex does not need to be locked in reiserfs_delete_inode.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Zarochentsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
fs/reiserfs/inode.c | 12 ++----------
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6-git/fs/reiserfs/inode.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-git.orig/fs/reiserfs/inode.c
+++ linux-2.6-git/fs/reiserfs/inode.c
@@ -37,14 +37,10 @@ void reiserfs_delete_inode(struct inode
/* The = 0 happens when we abort creating a new inode for some reason
like lack of space.. */
if (!(inode->i_state & I_NEW) && INODE_PKEY(inode)->k_objectid != 0) {
/* also handles bad_inode case */
- mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
-
reiserfs_delete_xattrs(inode);
- if (journal_begin(&th, inode->i_sb, jbegin_count)) {
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ if (journal_begin(&th, inode->i_sb, jbegin_count))
goto out;
- }
reiserfs_update_inode_transaction(inode);
err = reiserfs_delete_object(&th, inode);
@@ -55,12 +51,8 @@ void reiserfs_delete_inode(struct inode
if (!err)
DQUOT_FREE_INODE(inode);
- if (journal_end(&th, inode->i_sb, jbegin_count)) {
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ if (journal_end(&th, inode->i_sb, jbegin_count))
goto out;
- }
-
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
/* check return value from reiserfs_delete_object after
* ending the transaction
