[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53210.84.249.59.97.1212700307.squirrel@webmail.movial.fi>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:11:47 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Vorobiev Dmitri" <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Dmitri Vorobiev" <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi>,
tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove BKL from the bfs driver
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:26:35 +0300
> Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi> wrote:
>
>> This removes quite a few instances of BKL usage in the bfs
>> driver. Given the purpose and the user base of this driver,
>> I do not believe that a finer-granularity lock than the big
>> fat filesystem-wide mutex I have implemented here is needed.
>
> How well tested was this? With lockdep enabled?
>
Frankly speaking, I performed just some basic tests like mounting
a BFS partition, creating a few files on it, reading and writing
files, unmounting the partition, etc. Yes, lockdep was enabled.
> Because the new mutex cannot be taken recursively, whereas the BKL can.
> And there's potential for ab/ba deadlocks with, for example, i_mutex.
>
> However I don't see any such problems from a moderately intensive
> review.
OK, thank you for the review and for picking up the patches.
Dmitri
--
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