Re: locking rules for ->dirty_inode()

From: Andrew Morton (
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 17:41:11 EST

Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Hello,
> Documentation/filesystems/Locking states that all super operations may
> block, but __set_page_dirty_buffers() calls
> __mark_inode_dirty()->s_op->dirty_inode()
> under mapping->private_lock spin lock.

Actually it doesn't. We do not call down into the filesystem

set_page_dirty() is already called under locks, via __free_pte (pagetable
teardown). 2.4 does this as well.

But I'll make the change anyway. I think it removes any
ranking requirements between mapping->page_lock and
mapping->private_lock, which is always a nice thing.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:00:32 EST