[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090426070713.GA17022@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:07:14 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.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 Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:49:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The function ext4_mark_recovery_complete() is called from two call
> paths: either (a) while mounting the filesystem, in which case there's
> no danger of any other CPU calling write_super() until the mount is
> completed, and (b) while remounting the filesystem read-write, in
> which case the fs core has already locked the superblock, and in any
> case write_super() wouldn't be called until the filesystem is
> successfully changed from being mounted read-only to read-write.
Currently ext4_remount releases/reqacquires lock_super around
ext4_mark_recovery_complete, and unfortunately currently ->write_super
can be called on a r/o filesystem (that's why we have the MS_RDONLY
checks in all instance, I plan to clean that mess up).
So for now I would keep that instance of lock_super, it'll also serve as
documentation for the locking requirements once we pushed down
lock_super to the filesystem in ->write_super and ->remount_fs so that
it can eventually be replaced with an ext4-local lock.
--
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