On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:32:39PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:23 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:02:22PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > +static bool super_allows_freeze(struct super_block *sb)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return !!(sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_FREEZE_ON_SUSPEND);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > A minor comment: if "!!" would be left out the compiler will perform the
> > > conversion from int to bool implicitly
> >
> > For all compilers?
>
> Let's have a look at the output of the following commands:
>
> $ PAGER= git grep 'typedef.*[[:blank:]]bool;' include
> include/linux/types.h:typedef _Bool bool;
> $ PAGER= git grep std= Makefile
> Makefile: -fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89 $(HOST_LFS_CFLAGS)
> Makefile: -std=gnu89 $(call cc-option,-fno-PIE)
>
> From https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.2.0/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options:
> ‘gnu89’
> GNU dialect of ISO C90 (including some C99 features).
>
> I think this means that the Linux kernel tree can only be compiled correctly
> by compilers that support the C11 type _Bool.
:*) beautiful, thanks.
> > > Anyway, I agree with the approach of this patch and I think
> > > that freezing filesystems before processes are frozen would be a big step
> > > forward.
> >
> > Great! But please note, the current implementation calls fs_suspend_freeze()
> > *after* try_to_freeze_tasks(), ie: this implementation freezes userspace and
> > only after then filesystems.
>
> What will the impact be of that choice on filesystems implemented in userspace?
Depends on what kernel hooks those use? Also now is a good time for those working
on userspace filesystems to chime in :) Its why I am stating -- I am not saying
I have found the right order, I have find the right order that works for me, and
we need consensus on what the right order should be.
Luis
