On Tuesday 2008-05-20 23:08, Tom Spink wrote:
>
>I *think* I may have got it right, but please, let me know what you
>think! The only thing that I think may be wrong with this patch is
>the
>spin_lock/unlock at the end of sget, where the superblock is
>list_add_tailed into the super_blocks list. I believe this opens the
>possibility for the same superblock being list_add_tailed twice... can
>anyone else see this code-path, and is it a problem?
>
>+ mutex_lock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
>+ if (list_empty(&type->fs_supers) && type->init) {
>+ err = type->init();
>+ if (err) {
The filesystem may want to have the superblock passed.
Well, will see once a filesystem has the need for it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
