On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Chris Mason <chris.ma...@oracle.com> wrote: >> Is it ok not to unlock_extent if !ordered? >> I don't know if you fixed this in a later version but it stuck out to me :) > > The construct is confusing. Ordered extents track things that we have > allocated on disk and need to write. New ones can't be created while we > have the extent range locked. But we can't force old ones to disk with > the lock held. > > So, we lock then lookup and if we find nothing we can safely do our > operation because no io is in progress. We unlock a little later on, or > at endio time. > > If we find an ordered extent we drop the lock and wait for that IO to > finish, then loop again.
Ok, that's fair enough. Maybe it's worth commenting, I'm sure I'm not the only one surprised. Thanks, -- Dmitri Nikulin Centre for Synchrotron Science Monash University Victoria 3800, Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
