[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:08:11 +0300
From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
To: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: use appropriate replacements for
__sb_{start,end}_write calls
On 10.10.2017 13:48, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Commit a53f4f8e9c8eb ("btrfs: Don't call btrfs_start_transaction() on
> frozen fs to avoid deadlock.") started using internal calls and we
> replace them with more suitable ones.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/super.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> index 35a128a..99c21ae 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> @@ -1205,8 +1205,8 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> * happens. The pending operations are delayed to the
> * next commit after thawing.
> */
> - if (__sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE, false))
> - __sb_end_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> + if (sb_start_write_trylock(sb))
> + sb_end_write(sb)
> else
> return 0;
On second thought, what's to prevent the filesystem to be frozen if
sb_start_write/sb_end_write code executes? Or even after we are in the
middle of btrfs_start_transaction?
> trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 0);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists