On Wed 25-10-23 15:21:06, Christian Brauner wrote: > > Here if locked == true but say !(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE), we fail to > > unlock the superblock now AFAICT. > > Yeah, I've already fixed that up in-tree. I realized this because I've > fixed it correctly in the last patch. > > > And here if you really mean it with some kind of clean bail out, we should > > somehow get rid of the s_active reference we have. But exactly because of > > that getting super_lock_excl() failure here would be really weird... > > > > Otherwise the patch looks good. > > With the above fix folded in can I take your Ack? Yes. Feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
