when an error is hit, printing the error number is helpful.
this patch adds prints in such cases in aops.c.
Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang
---
fs/ocfs2/aops.c |9 +++--
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/aops.c b/fs/ocfs2/aops.c
index b2c52b3..04e0760
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 06:45:47PM -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote:
> Joel Becker wrote:
> >@@ -1108,6 +1117,10 @@ int ocfs2_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> > ret = generic_permission(inode, mask, ocfs2_check_acl);
> > ocfs2_inode_unlock(inode, 0);
> >+
> >+if (mask & MAY_CREATE)
You will have to trace thru process_blocked_lock() to make sense of this.
Coly Li wrote:
> Sunil Mushran Wrote:
>
>> So the thread is removing the lockres from the list (thus making
>> the count 0), and then calling ocfs2_process_blocked_lock() which
>> is adding that lockres back in the list (
Signed-off-by: Sunil Mushran
Wengang Wang wrote:
> when we check/modify lockres->purge, we should with the protection of
> lockres->spinlock.
> in dlm_purge_lockres(), the checking/modifying is not with the protectin.
> this patch fixes it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang
> ---
> fs/ocfs2/dlm/
Sunil Mushran Wrote:
> So the thread is removing the lockres from the list (thus making
> the count 0), and then calling ocfs2_process_blocked_lock() which
> is adding that lockres back in the list (thus 1).
>
> Trace ocfs2_process_blocked_lock() to see as to why it is putting it
> back on the l
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 01:37 -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:59:43PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> > OK, I think I have finished reviewing the whole patch set. Thanks
> > for the work. You can add my ACK to this set now. And once it get
> > merged into merge-window, I can ask tristan
when we check/modify lockres->purge, we should with the protection of
lockres->spinlock.
in dlm_purge_lockres(), the checking/modifying is not with the protectin.
this patch fixes it.
Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang
---
fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmthread.c |6 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 del
