Hi Changwei,
On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote:> Hi Jun,
> I think the comments for both two functions are OK.
> No need to rework them.
> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts
including
> block number.
I looked though the comments involved 'lockid', and found
'lockid' is a
concept in dlm level, so ocfs2 level should not be aware of it.
thanks,
Jun>
> Thanks,
> Changw2ei
>
> On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote:
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> There is the same mistake in ocfs2_reflink_inodes_lock(), could you
help
>> fixing them all?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Jun
>>
>> On 2018/2/28 18:17, Larry Chen wrote:
>>> The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower
>>> blockid first, not lockid.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <lchen at 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 at oss.oracle.com
>> https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
>>
> .
>