On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Jens, sorry about bitching about this again but you're silently changing > substantial locking assumptions without writing it *anywhere* and without > arguing it's safe. > Originally, generic_sync_sb_inodes() from writeback path have been > called with > a) s_umount_sem held > b) sb->s_count elevated > The second still seems to be true since, if I'm right, we pass here > non-NULL sb only from sync_filesystem() and that takes care of the > superblock reference. So that is just a matter of documenting this fact > before the function. We'll defintively need to keep both to prevent races vs unmount. And with a NULL superblock passed I'm not even sure how we can take care of it. -- 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
