On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:43:52PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 09:39:38PM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote: > > >> Please also push down lock_super, no need to have two locking changes in > > >> this area just after another. > > > > > > Do you plan to do that respin? ?I will need the lock_super pushdown for > > > some sync work. ?I can wait for you if you plan to submit it, otherwise > > > I'll out it on my TODO list. > > > > Apologize I have completely missed your first replay. > > > > Let me two days for finish that task and for do build and boot tests. > > Great! Thanks a lot for the effort. Actually, I'm not sure that you are right. Especially if we go for your "always hold s_umount for sync_filesystem()"; in that case we are guaranteed that we'll have an exclusion between ->write_super() and that sucker, so there's no reason to push it down into filesystems that do not use lock_super() at all. And that'd be most of them... Note that I've taken all callers of remount under exclusive s_umount (see #untested in the vfs tree). -- 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
