Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 May 2001 00:39:27 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] (part 2) fs/super.c cleanups |
| |
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > Locking rules: both require mount_sem and dcache_lock being > > held by callers. > > > > It would help a lot if locking rules were commented in > the source, rather than on linux-kernel.
They will change in the next chunks. In particular, we'll need rwlock for these two instead of mount_sem.
Current locking rules for fs/super.c are mess. It used to be completely under BKL and nobody cared much about races there, so lots of things are sloppy. As usual - there is no such thing as SMP-only race...
New variant makes much more sense, but I'm feeding it in small chunks and one of the obvious requirements is that at every stage situation should be better or same as on the previous step. It's -STABLE, damnit.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |