[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120104025020.GW23662@dastard>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:50:20 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 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 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.
So from a ->statfs POV, a frozen filesystem should look just like a
read-only filesystem. If frozen filesystems are holding locks that
->statfs can block on until the filesystem us thawed, then I'd
consider that a bug in the filesystem freeze implementation....
> to convert ustat(2) to "wait for thaw" semantics (should be interruptible,
> BTW) or document that ->statfs() is not allowed to wait for thawing.
> It's far too subtle to leave undocumented...
The latter, IMO.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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