Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the vfs tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 04-01-12 13:50:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:17:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > I'm still not
> > > sure about ->statfs(), BTW - any input on that would be welcome.  Can
> > > it end up blocked on a frozen fs until said fs is thawed?
> > 
> > I don't see why this should ever happen - ->statfs has to work on
> > read-only filesystems so shoul dnot be modifying state, and hence
> > should never need to care about the frozen state of the superblock.
>   Well, I'm also not aware of a filesystem where ->statfs would wait on
> frozen filesystem. Just note that e.g. for stat(2) frozen filesystem and
> RO filesystem *are* different because of atime updates. So stat(2) can
> block on frozen fs because of atime update while on RO filesystem it is
> just fine.

Neither of those should cause atime updates.

--
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/