On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 11:28:54AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > I've been looking into reducing sb_lock and replacing it mostly with a > new file_system_type->fs_super_lock which would be a > per-file-system-type spinlock protecting fs_type->fs_supers. > > With the changes in vfs.super bd_holder always stores the super_block > and so we should be able to get rid of get_super() and user_get_super() > completely. Am I right in this or is there something that would prevent > us from doing something like the following (completely untested sketch)?: I have a series killing get_super, and it looks pretty similar to what you've proposed. I'm completely under water right now but I hope can get it into a good enough shape to post it later today or tomorrow. user_get_super OTOH can't go away. It's only used in two legacy APIs where it must only work for the device in s_dev. It's not performance critical and we could use other lookup schemes. get_active_super can go away, but with Darrick having queued up work in this area it'll have to wait for next merge window.
