Re: [PATCH] sync_sb_inodes cleanup

[Vladimir Saveliev]

Hello

On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 21:49, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 11:37 +0400, Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
> 
> > I did not want to un-const start. It would be required for the
> > assignment move, wouldn't it?
> 
> Well, the const is just a programming convention.  It is useful here,
> but just a convention; removing it changes nothing behavior-wise.  Your
> patch, though, changes behavior.
> 
ok, I will move assignment.

> How bad do you need to push the spin locks into the function?
> 

The reason is that reiser4 implements its own sync_inodes method of
struct super_operations. reiser4_sync_inodes first calls
generic_sync_sb_inodes and then calls reiser4' function to flush atoms
to disk. If generic_sync_sb_inodes would exit with inode_lock locked,
reiser4_sync_inodes would have to unlock inode_lock after
generic_sync_sb_inodes and lock it before exit. inode_lock is static for
fs/inode.c, so, we asked whether it would be possible to have
spinlocking in generic_sync_sb_inodes.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/