On Tue 10-07-12 18:30:27, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao wrote: > On 2012/07/10 18:13, Jan Kara wrote: > > >On Tue 10-07-12 11:09:18, Jan Kara wrote: > >... > >>Also looking into the code, it seems emergency thaw won't be able to thaw > >>filesystems frozen with FIFREEZE ioctl (bd_fsfreeze_count will be zero)? > >>Calling thaw_super() directly would solve this but then we'd leave > >>bd_fzfreeze_count inconsistent... It's a mess with these two types of > >>freezing. > > Ah, I see you try to address this in the next patch. So scratch this > >comment. > > Ok. I would appreciate if you could take a look at all the patches. Except for patches 1 and 2 I'm basically OK with the series. Maybe I'd move patches 3 and 4 to the beginning of the series to make fixes of emergency thawing easier (you don't have to change thaw_bdev() as well). But that's a minor thing. > By the way, do you want me to rebase on top of your tree? It depends on how Al plans to handle my freezing fixes. I still don't see them in his tree. Al? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
