Re: Why does sys_fsync have a lock_kernel around it?

Hans Reiser (reiser@idiom.com)
Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:10:45 +0400

Since we are moving to an SMP kernel, and since we dropped locks in other places
around other FS operations, wouldn't it be more consistent and cleaner coding to
not lock any call before the FS gets passed it?

Hans

"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:35:28 +0400, Hans Reiser <reiser@idiom.com> said:
>
> > Surely it should unlock before file->f_op->fsync(file, dentry);
> > This won't scale for large fileservers..... and it seems unjustified.
>
> There is nothing to stop a filesystem from dropping the big lock
> internally if it wants to, but right now the filesystems are all
> expecting to have the lock on entry and things will break badly if it is
> missing.
>
> --Stephen
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
Get Linux (http://www.kernel.org) plus ReiserFS
 (http://devlinux.org/namesys).  If you sell an OS or
internet appliance, buy a port of ReiserFS!  If you
need customizations and industrial grade support, we sell them.








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