On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:23 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 08:02:22PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 11:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > +static bool super_allows_freeze(struct super_block *sb)
> > > +{
> > > + return !!(sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_FREEZE_ON_SUSPEND);
> > > +}
> >
> > A minor comment: if "!!" would be left out the compiler will perform the
> > conversion from int to bool implicitly
>
> For all compilers?
Let's have a look at the output of the following commands:
$ PAGER= git grep 'typedef.*[[:blank:]]bool;' include
include/linux/types.h:typedef _Bool bool;
$ PAGER= git grep std= Makefile
Makefile: -fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89 $(HOST_LFS_CFLAGS)
Makefile: -std=gnu89 $(call cc-option,-fno-PIE)
>From https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.2.0/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options:
‘gnu89’
GNU dialect of ISO C90 (including some C99 features).
I think this means that the Linux kernel tree can only be compiled correctly
by compilers that support the C11 type _Bool.
> > Anyway, I agree with the approach of this patch and I think
> > that freezing filesystems before processes are frozen would be a big step
> > forward.
>
> Great! But please note, the current implementation calls fs_suspend_freeze()
> *after* try_to_freeze_tasks(), ie: this implementation freezes userspace and
> only after then filesystems.
What will the impact be of that choice on filesystems implemented in userspace?
Thanks,
Bart.��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
