[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080507080027.GA23621@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 04:00:27 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com>,
Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2 01/28] VFS: introduce writeback_inodes_sb()
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:23:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > @@ -573,6 +573,14 @@ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> > spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > }
> >
> > +void writeback_inodes_sb(struct super_block *sb, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > + sync_sb_inodes(sb, wbc);
> > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > +}
> This looks rather similar to
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/reiser4-sb_sync_inodes.patch
>
> Which is best?
I think sync_sb_inodes should just lock/unlock the inode_lock itself as
per the patch from the reiser4 queue. But before we export it I'd like
to review what ubifs actually does with it.
Anyone care to submit a patch to just move the locking that we could
put in ASAP?
--
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