linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061107233420.GC30653@agk.surrey.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:34:20 +0000
From:	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
To:	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:18:08PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Srinivasa's description of the patch just speaks to how freeze_bdev
> and thaw_bdev are used by DM but completely skips justification for
> switching from mutex to semaphore.  Why is it beneficial and/or
> necessary to use a semaphore instead of a mutex here?

This used to be a semaphore; someone changed it to a mutex; we started
getting device-mapper bug reports from people because the usage breaks the
stated semantics for a mutex; this patch puts things back while we consider
if there's a better way of doing things.
 
Alasdair
-- 
agk@...hat.com
-
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/