On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 04:51:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > 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() The interesting cases are locking against internal s_lock which at least extN needs or ->write_super. And I'd really be rather safe than sorry and audit individual filesystems than introducing bug in an obscure one. -- 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
