On 08/20/2009 02:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Any chance you could also remove the lock_super usage once your start > revisiting the lock? lock_super is never taken by the VFS anymore, so > you can easily replace it with fs-local locking. > OK Sure, thanks. One question please? I need a mutex_lock I can sleep on. Could I use the inode_lock associate with the root_inode. Or that could lead to dead-locks with the VFS? I'll test it out anyway, but out of your head could it lead to problems? All I need is sleepable serialization of exofs_sync_fs() from itself. (Or should I just allocate another mutex at the fs-sb-data?) Boaz -- 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
