[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200611080005.50070.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 00:05:49 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, 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 Tuesday, 7 November 2006 23:45, Eric Sandeen 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?
But freeze_bdev() is supposed to return the result of get_super(bdev)
_unconditionally_. Moreover, in its current form freeze_bdev() _cannot_
_fail_, so I don't see how this change doesn't break any existing code.
For example freeze_filesystems() (recently added to -mm) will be broken
if the down_trylock() is unsuccessful.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
-
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