[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090426114904.GA9212@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:49:04 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need
to use lock_super
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 07:46:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> That's true, but the patch also takes out the release/reacquire in in
> ext4_remount (which was particularly ugly, belch).
Sorry, missed the second hunk of the patch.
> So even if
> write_super gets called on an r/o filesystem (why?!?),
No good reason really. Hopefully we'll sort all that out soon.
> we should be
> safe because remount will hold lock_super() throughout the entire
> remount operation.
>
> We could delay this cleanup until you clean the mess with write_super,
> but I don't think it would be harmful in removing the
> lock_super()/unlock_super() pair in ext4_mark_recovery_complete(), and
> the unlock_super()/lock_super() pair in ext4_remount before then. Am
> I missing something?
No, I was just missing the second hunk of the patch.
--
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