On 08/23/2009 04:31 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 03:04:46PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> 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? > > It could lead to all kinds of lock dependency problems no one even > thinks about. > >> (Or should I just allocate another mutex at the fs-sb-data?) > > Yes. > Thanks, I'll do that -- 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
