On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:01:14PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, May 07, 2023 at 06:17:12PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > Right now freeze_super() and thaw_super() are called with > > different locking contexts. To expand on this is messy, so > > just unify the requirement to require grabbing an active > > reference and keep the superblock locked. > > > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Maybe I'm just getting old, but where did I suggest this? https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210420120335.GA3604224@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ "I don't think we need both variants, just move the locking and s_active acquisition out of free_super. Same for the thaw side." > That being said, holding an active reference over any operation is a > good thing. As Jan said it can be done way simpler than this, though. Great. Luis _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
