Re: [PATCH vfs-2.6:for-next] vfs: remount_fs BKL pushdown

[Al Viro]

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:26:30AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 04:51:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure that you are right.  Especially if we go for your
> > "always hold s_umount for sync_filesystem()"; in that case we are guaranteed
> > that we'll have an exclusion between ->write_super() and that sucker, so
> > there's no reason to push it down into filesystems that do not use lock_super()
> 
> The interesting cases are locking against internal s_lock which at least
> extN needs or ->write_super.  And I'd really be rather safe than sorry
> and audit individual filesystems than introducing bug in an obscure one.

write_super() can *not* get contention against remount.  That's the point.
And other that write_super, we have very few filesystems that even mention
lock_super() anywhere.  Yes, ext3 and ext4.  Also fat, sysv, ufs and hpfs.
That's it.  Compare with the number of suckers that have write_super()
and especially remount_fs()...
--
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/