On 2020/1/17 21:32, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
We can unref both old/new inodes with the same mutex lock.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé<phi...@redhat.com>
---
Based-on:<20191212163904.159893-1-dgilb...@redhat.com>
"virtiofs daemon"
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg664652.html
tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
index 57f58aef26..5c717cb5a1 100644
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
@@ -1461,8 +1461,10 @@ static void lo_rename(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t parent,
const char *name,
}
out:
- unref_inode_lolocked(lo, oldinode, 1);
- unref_inode_lolocked(lo, newinode, 1);
+ pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
+ unref_inode(lo, oldinode, 1);
+ unref_inode(lo, newinode, 1);
+ pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
Hi,
It seems to avoid calling pthread_mutex_lock and pthread_mutex_unlock twice.
Does the change fix some issues or improve the performance?
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
lo_inode_put(lo,&oldinode);
lo_inode_put(lo,&newinode);
lo_inode_put(lo,&parent_inode);
