[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090506035138.GP8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 04:51:38 +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 Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:43:52PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 09:39:38PM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> > >> Please also push down lock_super, no need to have two locking changes in
> > >> this area just after another.
> > >
> > > Do you plan to do that respin? ?I will need the lock_super pushdown for
> > > some sync work. ?I can wait for you if you plan to submit it, otherwise
> > > I'll out it on my TODO list.
> >
> > Apologize I have completely missed your first replay.
> >
> > Let me two days for finish that task and for do build and boot tests.
>
> Great! Thanks a lot for the effort.
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()
at all. And that'd be most of them...
Note that I've taken all callers of remount under exclusive s_umount (see
#untested in the vfs tree).
--
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