On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:15:12PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > IOW, while fs shutdown may be async, making it *always* async would be a bad > > bug. And bumping ->s_active does just that. > > > > I'd go for trylock inside that work + making generic_shutdown_super() > > kill all such works. I assume that it *can* be abandoned in situation > > when we know that sync_filesystem() is about to be called and that > > said sync_filesystem() won't, in turn, schedule any such works, of course... > > I'll make generic_shutdown_super() to kill all such work items. I > don't think the work item itself would need further locking tho. Can > you please elaborate why you thought adding trylock to the work would > be necessary?
Umm... Not much, except that it would make the life cycle rules a bit more regular. Is that code OK with e.g. running in parallel with remounting filesystem r/o?
