[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120104184746.GA8461@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:47:46 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 04-01-12 13:50:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:17:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > I'm still not
> > > sure about ->statfs(), BTW - any input on that would be welcome. Can
> > > it end up blocked on a frozen fs until said fs is thawed?
> >
> > I don't see why this should ever happen - ->statfs has to work on
> > read-only filesystems so shoul dnot be modifying state, and hence
> > should never need to care about the frozen state of the superblock.
> Well, I'm also not aware of a filesystem where ->statfs would wait on
> frozen filesystem. Just note that e.g. for stat(2) frozen filesystem and
> RO filesystem *are* different because of atime updates. So stat(2) can
> block on frozen fs because of atime update while on RO filesystem it is
> just fine.
Neither of those should cause atime updates.
--
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