[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090506064827.GR8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 07:48:27 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
LFSDEV <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH vfs-2.6:for-next] vfs: remount_fs BKL pushdown
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:26:30AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 04:51:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure that you are right. Especially if we go for your
> > "always hold s_umount for sync_filesystem()"; in that case we are guaranteed
> > that we'll have an exclusion between ->write_super() and that sucker, so
> > there's no reason to push it down into filesystems that do not use lock_super()
>
> The interesting cases are locking against internal s_lock which at least
> extN needs or ->write_super. And I'd really be rather safe than sorry
> and audit individual filesystems than introducing bug in an obscure one.
write_super() can *not* get contention against remount. That's the point.
And other that write_super, we have very few filesystems that even mention
lock_super() anywhere. Yes, ext3 and ext4. Also fat, sysv, ufs and hpfs.
That's it. Compare with the number of suckers that have write_super()
and especially remount_fs()...
--
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