On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:23:26AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
> fs/reiserfs/super.c between commit
> d38705358bf6f5ab82348d0c6ee8039cea20ce6b ("reiserfs: kill-the-BKL") from
> the reiserfs-bkl tree and commit 8123178eb9ca12cde31a95170746e15a79528a62
> ("push BKL down into ->put_super") from the vfs tree.
>
> OK, I am not sure what is needed here, so I combined both (see below). I
> can carry this fixup as necessary.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> diff --cc fs/reiserfs/super.c
> index b301f7d,90dcb7b..0000000
> --- a/fs/reiserfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/reiserfs/super.c
> @@@ -468,13 -465,11 +465,18 @@@ static void reiserfs_put_super(struct s
> struct reiserfs_transaction_handle th;
> th.t_trans_id = 0;
>
> + lock_kernel();
> +
> + /*
> + * We didn't need to explicitly lock here before, because put_super
> + * is called with the bkl held.
> + * Now that we have our own lock, we must explicitly lock.
> + */
> + reiserfs_write_lock(s);
Hi Stephen,
I'm not sure how this conflict look like.
But yeah, you need both.
The write lock, which was the bkl before, has been placed explicitly
since the write lock is a mutex and the locking does not depend anymore
on the bkl.
I also think the bkl pushdown in reiserfs is not needed, since it now
protects itself from concurrent reiserfs_put_super() using its own lock.
But although it is not needed, it should be removed in a separate commit.
So for now, IMO you have the right fix. The end result should be:
static void reiserfs_put_super(struct super_block *s)
{
struct reiserfs_transaction_handle th;
th.t_trans_id = 0;
lock_kernel();
/*
* We didn't need to explicitly lock here before, because put_super
* is called with the bkl held.
* Now that we have our own lock, we must explicitly lock.
*/
reiserfs_write_lock(s);
[...]
reiserfs_write_unlock(s);
mutex_destroy(&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock);
kfree(s->s_fs_info);
s->s_fs_info = NULL;
unlock_kernel();
}
> + if (s->s_dirt)
> + reiserfs_write_super(s);
But this part seems to solve another conflict, right?
I'm not sure about it.
Frederic.
> +
> /* change file system state to current state if it was mounted with read-write permissions */
> if (!(s->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> if (!journal_begin(&th, s, 10)) {
--
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
