[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111129133239.GA9926@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:32:39 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
esandeen@...hat.com, Surbhi Palande <csurbhi@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Christopher Chaltain <christopher.chaltain@...onical.com>,
Valerie Aurora <val@...consulting.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] deadlock with suspend and quotas
On Tue 29-11-11 13:18:11, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 02:09:13PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hmm, then why do these operations suspend the filesystem if they
> > apparently don't need it? Sorry for my ignorance, I never seriously worked
> > with LVM code...
>
> They don't suspend it if they don't need to.
>
> dm-ioctl.h:
> /*
> * Set this to avoid attempting to freeze any filesystem when suspending.
> */
> #define DM_SKIP_LOCKFS_FLAG (1 << 10) /* In */
Thanks. I was now checking in detail and indeed FIFREEZE fails if
->freeze_fs is not set. And only xfs, ext3, ext4, reiserfs, jfs, nilfs2,
and gfs2 provide this function. So I was correct in assuming that when
filesystem supports FIFREEZE it must make sure no modifications happen to
the filesystem. So I believe that my original plan for sync to skip frozen
filesystem is correct.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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