[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1209659204.4461.65.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 09:26:44 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] must hold lock_super() to set initial mount
writer
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 11:25 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > We need lock_mnt_writers() during a remount in order
> > to keep mnt->__mnt_writers from changing so that we
> > get a consistent look at if a sb currently has anyone
> > writing to it.
> >
> > But, we need to lock writers out for an extended
> > period, even during the ->remount_fs() operation.
> > That's because we do conclusively make the fs
> > r/o until *after* the ->remount_fs().
>
> So? Why don't we mark the fs r/o _before_ calling ->remount_fs() and
> if that fails, just mark it r/w again.
>
> OK, we'll deny writes in that interval, but I don't see that as a big
> problem. And it would simplify the implementation considerably.
Personally, I think that's a bit messy. People might start getting
-EROFS when they never, ever *HAD* a r/o FS. They may have made a
request for one, but they never actually hard one.
I also understand what you're saying. If we were able to loosen up some
of the requirements it would certainly make the patches simpler. How
does everyone else feel about this?
-- Dave
--
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