the two places inside exofs that where taking the BKL were:
exofs_put_super() - .put_super
and
exofs_sync_fs() - which is .sync_fs and is also called from
.write_super.
Now exofs_sync_fs() is protected from itself by also taking
the sb_lock.
exofs_put_super() directly calls exofs_sync_fs() so there is no
danger between these two either.
In anyway there is absolutely nothing dangerous been done
inside exofs_sync_fs().
Unless there is some subtle race with the actual lifetime of
the super_block in regard to .put_super and some other parts
of the VFS. Which is highly unlikely.
Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/exofs/super.c | 6 ------
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exofs/super.c b/fs/exofs/super.c
index 5ab10c3..9f500de 100644
--- a/fs/exofs/super.c
+++ b/fs/exofs/super.c
@@ -214,7 +214,6 @@ int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
}
lock_super(sb);
- lock_kernel();
sbi = sb->s_fs_info;
fscb->s_nextid = cpu_to_le64(sbi->s_nextid);
fscb->s_numfiles = cpu_to_le32(sbi->s_numfiles);
@@ -245,7 +244,6 @@ int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
out:
if (or)
osd_end_request(or);
- unlock_kernel();
unlock_super(sb);
kfree(fscb);
return ret;
@@ -268,8 +266,6 @@ static void exofs_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
int num_pend;
struct exofs_sb_info *sbi = sb->s_fs_info;
- lock_kernel();
-
if (sb->s_dirt)
exofs_write_super(sb);
@@ -286,8 +282,6 @@ static void exofs_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
osduld_put_device(sbi->s_dev);
kfree(sb->s_fs_info);
sb->s_fs_info = NULL;
-
- unlock_kernel();
}
/*
--
1.6.2.1
--
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
