On Fri, 8 May 2009, Al Viro wrote: > > Al, would it make sense to merge the fuse tree into the vfs tree at > > some point to fix the conflict permanently? > > Hmm... Doable, of course, but I really wonder if that's the right > way to deal with this one. The thing is, looking at the current VFS > tree I see very few places where FUSE gets called with BKL (essentially, > ->get_sb(), ->remount_fs()) and ->...ioctl()). ->remount_fs() is absolutely > locking-agnostic there and ->get_sb(), ->put_super() and ->umount_begin() > are all serialized per superblock. And for data structures that are > not per-superblock FUSE doesn't rely on BKL in any of those, AFAICT. That's correct. > If you can ACK that, we could simply leave FUSE out of all the "push > BKL down into get_sb/umount_begin/put_super/remount_fs" series. Okay. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
