[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] udf: Replace BKL with superblock's mutex s_lock
    On Saturday 23 October 2010, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
    > This work was supported by a hardware donation from the CE Linux Forum.
    > Signed-off-by: Alessio Igor Bogani <>

    Hi Alessio,

    Thanks a lot for joining in on the effort. Your patches look good for the
    most part, but there are a few details you should change before they
    go upstream. Most importantly, the subject lines of patches are currently
    not unique and they tell very little about what is going on. You can
    probably merge the three "remove BKL" patches into one and explain
    why that is safe in a combined changelog.

    > @@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ static int udf_remount_fs(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *options)
    > if (!udf_parse_options(options, &uopt, true))
    > return -EINVAL;
    > - lock_kernel();
    > + mutex_lock(&sb->s_lock);
    > sbi->s_flags = uopt.flags;
    > sbi->s_uid = uopt.uid;
    > sbi->s_gid = uopt.gid;

    As I recently learned, there is also an effort to get rid of sb->s_lock, so
    the change in super.c is not all that helpful. When you need a per-filesystem
    mutex, please instead add a new one to udf_sb_info. There is already the
    s_alloc_mutex. While I haven't looked at that, maybe it can be extended to
    cover the other areas that are under s_lock with your patch. Watch out for
    put_super freeing sb_info under the lock though.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-23 13:55    [W:0.030 / U:26.808 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site