[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502CC477.4060005@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:59:19 +0200
From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To: bharrosh@...asas.com, bhalevy@...ian.com, jack@...e.cz,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, tytso@....edu,
hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp, mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, hch@...radead.org,
dushistov@...l.ru, osd-dev@...n-osd.org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/8] remove lock and unlock super
Hi all,
I'm trying to remove the functions lock_super/unlock_super and to push
the lock into each single fs. Currently these fs use these functions:
ext3, ext4, fat, hpfs, exofs, sysv, ufs. At the moment I used the more
conservative approach, I created a new mutex s_lock in the private sb
info for each fs, so nothing change but a couple of notes:
1) exofs/hpfs: they use lock_super only in one function so the lock
seems completely not needed and I removed it, do you see collateral effect?
2) fat/ufs: they have already got functions to lock the fs with a mutex,
I don't know at the moment if a general review of the code can give us
the possibility to "merge" the locks.
Bugs, comments, review are welcome especially from fs maintainers. Maybe
this work can be a first cleaning, after that each fs can adjust its
lock policy.
The patch is against 3.6-rc1.
Marco
--
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