[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.83.0704102041210.7971@sigma.j-a-k-j.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>
To: kernelnewbies@...linux.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: ext3, BKL, journal replay, multiple non-bind mounts of same device
Since it is possible for the same block device to be mounted multiple
times concurrently by the same filesystem, and since ext3 explicitly
disables the BKL during its fill_super operation which would prevent this,
what is the result of mounting it multiple times this way? Especially if
the filesystem is dirty and a journal is replayed. (In any case, what
operation is being performed by ext3/ext4 that requires the BKL to be
dropped? What's the need to even consider the BKL during fill_super?)
And in general, how does a filesystem deal with being mounted multiple
times in this way? In my testing and exploration so far, everything seems
to generally work, but I haven't tried deliberately using different
instances of the mount concurrently. Do we end up with locks not being
held properly on the superblock because the super_block structure
instances don't know about each other? Has dealing with this behavior of
bd_claim really been considered before, and if so, what's the general
scheme for handling it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists