From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B0AC5DF64 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:09:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA16B217F5 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:09:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="2WRdGHt4" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EA16B217F5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7926C6B0006; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 71B4C6B0007; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:09:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 630C46B0008; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:09:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0047.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.47]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6086B0006 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin13.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E42478249980 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:09:45 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76126640730.13.dirt45_724fb1a440961 X-HE-Tag: dirt45_724fb1a440961 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2979 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A30CA2067B; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:09:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1573063784; bh=FY+VXyS042hqe2bvJcmQdupgBykiS4rX0d53SHRw51I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=2WRdGHt47CFD+6e0g9a/DCq16NRX0NOphUrmdhwSSR30P8qFIiTR1h+1XckzbdGi6 JTzx+4Mdh2t9ZdVLdftRnRg4buh96CRSdHHPjMzM+SLN510XKwn5lrgEt2JEDG5eRM hZR253QLW/u0MMWwdShFA1PUX9uY0Uy4IRTAmVJ0= Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:09:42 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Linus Torvalds Cc: gechangwei@live.cn, ghe@suse.com, jiangqi903@gmail.com, jlbec@evilplan.org, junxiao.bi@oracle.com, Linux-MM , mark@fasheh.com, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, piaojun@huawei.com, stable , sunny.s.zhang@oracle.com Subject: Re: [patch 05/17] ocfs2: protect extent tree in ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_write() Message-Id: <20191106100942.ccdd57115916ea71754ed027@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20191106051634.IwGqLbBvh%akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:41:44 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:16 PM wrote: > > > > From: Shuning Zhang > > Subject: ocfs2: protect extent tree in ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_write(= ) > > > > When the extent tree is modified, it should be protected by inode clu= ster > > lock and ip_alloc_sem. > > > > The extent tree is accessed and modified in the > > ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_write, but isn't protected by ip_alloc_sem. >=20 > This patch results in a new warning for me: >=20 > fs/ocfs2/file.c:2101:12: warning: =E2=80=98ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_re= fcount=E2=80=99 > defined but not used [-Wunused-function] > 2101 | static int ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_refcount(struct inode *ino= de, > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >=20 > and I'm wondering why nobody seems to have noticed that or fixed > things? Because it does look like this removed the only use of that > function, and everybody who compiled this should have seen this > warning? >=20 Oop, sorry, that's in a separate patch which I failed to squish. Shall send now.