Hi, On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 16:40, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Andrew, can you remember why we ended up with both of those locks in the > first place? If we can do it, the efficient way out here is to abandon > the journal_head_lock and use the bh_state_lock for both. We already > hold that over many of the key refile spots, and this would avoid the > need to take yet another lock in those paths. Actually, I realised there's an easier way: provide a variant of __journal_unfile_buffer() which doesn't clear jh->b_transaction. That's a subtle change in the logic, but everywhere that is calling this, we already hold various locks --- except for that elusive bh_journal_head lock. But since everywhere else is using _other_ locks, the transient state where we're on the transaction but not on a list won't be visible --- we'll have refiled before we drop the lock. I think things should work just fine with this change. __journal_unfile_buffer() already handles the case where we're called with b_transaction set but no b_jlist, for example. --Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
