[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH vfs-2.6:for-next] vfs: remount_fs BKL pushdown
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:26:30AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 04:51:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure that you are right. Especially if we go for your
> > "always hold s_umount for sync_filesystem()"; in that case we are guaranteed
> > that we'll have an exclusion between ->write_super() and that sucker, so
> > there's no reason to push it down into filesystems that do not use lock_super()
> The interesting cases are locking against internal s_lock which at least
> extN needs or ->write_super. And I'd really be rather safe than sorry
> and audit individual filesystems than introducing bug in an obscure one.

write_super() can *not* get contention against remount. That's the point.
And other that write_super, we have very few filesystems that even mention
lock_super() anywhere. Yes, ext3 and ext4. Also fat, sysv, ufs and hpfs.
That's it. Compare with the number of suckers that have write_super()
and especially remount_fs()...

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-06 08:51    [W:0.063 / U:13.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site