[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061107234951.GD30653@agk.surrey.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:49:51 +0000
From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, 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 Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:05:49AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
I hadn't noticed that -mm patch. I'll take a look. Up to now, device-mapper
(via dmsetup) and xfs (via xfs_freeze, which dates from before device-mapper
handled this automatically) were the only users. Only one freeze should be
issued at once. A freeze is a temporary thing, normally used while creating a
snapshot. (One problem we still have is lots of old documentation on the web
advising people to run xfs_freeze before creating device-mapper snapshots.)
You're right that the down_trylock idea is more trouble than it's worth and
should be scrapped.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists