29.01.2010 02:56, Jun'ichi Nomura skrev:
Thanks Thomas and Christoph for testing and review. I removed 'smp_wmb()' before up_write from the previous patch, since up_write() should have necessary ordering constraints. (I.e. the change of s_frozen is visible to others after up_write) I'm quite sure the change is harmless but if you are uncomfortable with Tested-by/Reviewed-by on the modified patch, please remove them.
I've just verified that this patch works as intended on both 2.6.32 and 2.6.33-rc6, so for me it's still OK.
If MS_RDONLY, freeze_bdev should just up_write(s_umount) instead of deactivate_locked_super(). Also, keep sb->s_frozen consistent so that remount can check the frozen state. Otherwise a crash reported here can happen: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/16/37 http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/28/53 This patch should be applied for 2.6.32 stable series, too. Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig<hch@xxxxxx> Tested-by: Thomas Backlund<tmb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura<j-nomura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c index 73d6a73..d11d028 100644 --- a/fs/block_dev.c +++ b/fs/block_dev.c @@ -246,7 +246,8 @@ struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct block_device *bdev) if (!sb) goto out; if (sb->s_flags& MS_RDONLY) { - deactivate_locked_super(sb); + sb->s_frozen = SB_FREEZE_TRANS; + up_write(&sb->s_umount); mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); return sb; } @@ -307,7 +308,7 @@ int thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, struct super_block *sb) BUG_ON(sb->s_bdev != bdev); down_write(&sb->s_umount); if (sb->s_flags& MS_RDONLY) - goto out_deactivate; + goto out_unfrozen; if (sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs) { error = sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs(sb); @@ -321,11 +322,11 @@ int thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, struct super_block *sb) } } +out_unfrozen: sb->s_frozen = SB_UNFROZEN; smp_wmb(); wake_up(&sb->s_wait_unfrozen); -out_deactivate: if (sb) deactivate_locked_super(sb); out_unlock: .
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
