On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 08:24:37AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:39:38PM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > Actually, there is no reason about why a user must umount and mount a XFS > > filesystem to enable 'inode64' option. So, this patch makes this a remountable > > option. > > What does protect concurrent updates of m_flags? > I don't think there is any lock protection around m_flags, I did a search on the code and couldn't find anything protecting it. At a first glance though, I don't think there is a need to protect it once this flag is managed only during super operations - mount/umount/remount - Also, I *think* the sb->s_umount rw_semaphore is enough for protection, once it protects the whole mount/umount operation, but I'm 100% sure of it. > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- --Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
