On 09/18/2017 08:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Taking a look at this it seems like using a lock in struct block_device > isn't the right thing to do anyway - all the action is on fields in > struct blk_trace, so having a lock inside that would make a lot more > sense. > > It would also help to document what exactly we're actually protecting. I think I documented in the patch that the lock has to protect changes in the blktrace structure as well as the allocation and destruction of it. Because of that, it can't be put inside the blktrace structure. The original code use the bd_mutex of the block_device structure. I just change the code to use another bd_fsfreeze_mutex in the same structure. In an earlier patch version, I used a global blktrace mutex. This was deemed to be not scalable enough and so I now use the bd_fsfreeze_mutex instead. Cheers, Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
