On Monday 27 September 2010, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> Yes, I believe it is not necessary. fill_super(sb) should not run
> concurrently with anything else because MS_BORN and MS_ACTIVE are not
> set yet so nobody else should use this sb from VFS. One thing which
> seems to be missing is doing lock_sock() around code which sets
> sk->sk_{error_report,data_ready,write_space} - there does not seem to
> be anything else to protect ipv4/ipv6/ipx from seeing partially
> updated pointers on systems where these writes are not atomic - that's
> ncpfs2.patch.
>
> Also I found some whitespace problems, and one missing const, so if
> you could merge ncpfs3.patch & ncpfs4.patch with original BKL removal,
> it would be cool. Or I can resend all 4 patches as one bigger diff if
> you prefer.
Generally I prefer separate patches for changes that make sense to be
split, so I left ncpfs2.patch separately.
I think it would be nice to do the first patch in smaller steps, but
since you are the maintainer, I'm not going to complain ;-)
Applied both patches to my bkl/vfs series now.
Arnd
--
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
