On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:02:06PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > Wouldn't it make sense to have helpers like "inode_read_lock(inode)" or > similar, > so that it is consistent with other parts of the code and easier to find? > It's a bit strange to have the filesystems use "inode_lock()" and some places > here use "inode_lock_nested()", but other places use up_read() and down_read() > directly on &inode->i_rwsem. That would also simplify delegating the > directory > locking to the filesystems in the future.
FWIW, my preference would be inode_lock_shared(), but that's bikeshedding; seeing that we have very few callers at the moment *and* there's the missing down_write_killable() stuff... This patch will obviously be reworked and it's small enough to be understandable, open-coding or not.
