> I think we misunderstood here. I believe we need: > > /* > * Pairs with smp_load_acquire() in super_lock() to make sure > * all initializations in the superblock are seen by the user > * seeing SB_BORN sent. > */ > smp_store_release(&sb->s_flags, sb->s_flags | flag); > /* > * Pairs with the barrier in prepare_to_wait_event() to make sure > * ___wait_var_event() either sees SB_BORN set or > * waitqueue_active() check in wake_up_var() sees the waiter > */ > smp_rmb(); > wake_up_var(&sb->s_flags); Oh right, sorry I missed this. > Maybe we can have in these places rather: > > if (!super_lock_excl(sb)) > WARN(1, "Dying superblock while freezing!"); > > So that we reduce the amount of __super_lock_excl() calls which are kind of > special. In these places we hold active reference so practically this is > equivalent. Just a though, pick whatever you find better, I don't have a > strong opinion but wanted to share this idea. Ok, will pick yours. Do you want me to resend?
