Re: [PATCH 1/2] super: massage wait event mechanism

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:52:56PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:59:00PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Can you explain why you're "massaging" things here?
> 
> Ah, I didn't update my commit message before sending out:
> 
> "We're currently using two separate helpers wait_born() and wait_dead()
> when we can just all do it in a single helper super_load_flags(). We're
> also acquiring the lock before we check whether this superblock is even
> a viable candidate. If it's already dying we don't even need to bother
> with the lock."
> 
> Is that alright?

Sounds good, but now I need to go back and cross-reference it with
what actuall is in the patch :)




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux