Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <> | Subject | [PATCH] trivial: inode uses a mutex instead of a semaphore. | Date | Fri, 7 May 2010 16:52:26 -0300 |
| |
Replace the introduced i_sem by an i_mutex in the filesystem locking documentation. This was introduced [1] after all occurrences were already replaced in the same text [2]. However, the term "inode semaphore" has not been replaced then, and it's replaced now.
[1] afddba49d18f346e5cc2938b6ed7c512db18ca68 [2] a7bc02f4f47fd0e7860c6589f0ad000d1476f7a3
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@holoscopio.com> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> --- Documentation/filesystems/Locking | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking index 06bbbed..af16080 100644 --- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ prototypes: locking rules: All except set_page_dirty may block - BKL PageLocked(page) i_sem + BKL PageLocked(page) i_mutex writepage: no yes, unlocks (see below) readpage: no yes, unlocks sync_page: no maybe @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ check_flags: no implementations. If your fs is not using generic_file_llseek, you need to acquire and release the appropriate locks in your ->llseek(). For many filesystems, it is probably safe to acquire the inode -semaphore. Note some filesystems (i.e. remote ones) provide no +mutex. Note some filesystems (i.e. remote ones) provide no protection for i_size so you will need to use the BKL. Note: ext2_release() was *the* source of contention on fs-intensive -- 1.7.1
| |