On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > So this is just the temporary kludge which helps us to avoid the > > conflicts with the changes which will be (hopefully) routed via > > rcu tree. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Looking into this again, it would seem somewhat cleaner to me to move the > destruction to deactivate_locked_super() instead. Heh ;) You know, I was looking at deactivate_locked_super(). However, I simply do not understand this code enough, I failed to verify it would be safe to destroy s_writers there. And. Please note destroy_super() in alloc_super() error path, so this needs a bit more changes in any case. Can't we live with this hack for now? To remind, it will be reverted (at least partially) in any case. Yes, yes, it is very ugly and the changelog documents this fact. But it looks simple and safe. To me it would be better to make the conversion first, then cleanup this horror after another discussion. What do you think? Oleg. -- 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
