On 1/10/12 3:31 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 10-01-12 14:20:23, Eric Sandeen wrote: <snip> >> Hrm let me think through this a little more; we actually do: >> >> t16) ext4_journal_start() >> t17) ext4_journal_start_sb() >> t18) handle = ext4_journal_current_handle(); >> t19) if (!handle) vfs_check_frozen() >> t20) ... jbd2_journal_start() > Ah, right. I forgot. > >> So actually we *do* block new handles, but let *existing* ones >> continue (see commits 6b0310fbf087ad6e9e3b8392adca97cd77184084 >> and be4f27d324e8ddd57cc0d4d604fe85ee0425cba9) >> >> So your assertion that a new handle is started is incorrect >> in general, isn't it? So then does the fix seem necessary? >> Or, at least, in the fashion below - maybe we need to just make >> sure all started handles complete before the unlock_updates? >> Or am I missing something...? > Well, the problem with running operations and freezing is more > fundamental I believe. See my email > http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=132585911925796&w=2 > > So I believe we'll need some better exclusion mechanism already in VFS. > > Honza > Yep, saw it, just wasn't sure if this patchset was still under active consideration. Thanks, -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
