Jens Axboe wrote: > > ... > > We just want ext3/jbd to make sure that it only calls bh2jh on > > an unlocked buffer... is that easy? > > That's the question indeed, someone with a good grasp of jbd should make > that call. If that is the only 'violator' (depending on your point of > view), then yes lets just fix that up and say that the above is pb > private is valid. We really don't want to do this, please. Changing things so that we can only run bh2jh() and, particularly, journal_add_journal_head() on a locked buffer would involve fairly unpleasant surgery against parts of ext3 which are already prone to exploding. Like do_get_write_access(). If it was needed for 2.5 then hmm, maybe. But as this is only a 2.4 problem then I really don't think we should risk breaking or slowing down the filesystem for this. Look, it's easy: delete buffer_head.b_inode (which is only used as a boolean), move its function to a b_state bit. Add a new buffer_head.ext3_hack and we can use that for pointing at the journal_head. <insert "stable kernel" mantra here ;)> - _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@sistina.com http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
