[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061107150017.fb78a327.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:00:17 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:45:07 -0600
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >> --- linux-2.6.19-rc4.orig/fs/buffer.c 2006-11-07 17:06:20.000000000 +0000
> >> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc4/fs/buffer.c 2006-11-07 17:26:04.000000000 +0000
> >> @@ -188,7 +188,9 @@ struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct b
> >> {
> >> struct super_block *sb;
> >>
> >> - mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
> >> + if (down_trylock(&bdev->bd_mount_sem))
> >> + return -EBUSY;
> >> +
> >
> > This is a functional change which isn't described in the changelog. What's
> > happening here?
>
> Only allow one bdev-freezer in at a time, rather than queueing them up?
>
You're asking me? ;)
Guys, I'm going to park this patch pending a full description of what it
does, a description of what the above hunk is doing and pending an
examination of whether we'd be better off changing the mutex-debugging code
rather than switching to semaphores.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists