[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080525193211.GA24328@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 15:32:11 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Takashi Sato <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"xfs@....sgi.com" <xfs@....sgi.com>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature
> + if (test_and_set_bit(BD_FREEZE_OP, &bdev->bd_state))
> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> +
> + sb = get_super_without_lock(bdev);
> +
> + /* If super_block has been already frozen, return. */
> + if (sb && sb->s_frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) {
> + put_super(sb);
> + clear_bit(BD_FREEZE_OP, &bdev->bd_state);
> + return sb;
> + }
The BD_FREEZE_OP flag in the block_device already prevents multiple
freezes for a singe block device, so there is no need for this
additional check and the get_super_without_lock helper.
> down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
And with that flag bd_mount_sem is also obsolete for preventing the
multiple freeze operations. We still need investigate what
synchronization we need vs unmount which also takes bd_mount_sem without
every having document what it exactly protects.
--
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