Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Sami Farin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
...
fstab was there just fine after -u.
Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
Looked like it =)
Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137
I guess it got lost?
Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge?
Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there
would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held??
Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect? At
least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules. :)
I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this
mutex problem would simply go away.
Well nobody's asserting that the filesystem must always be locked &
unlocked by the same thread, are they? That'd be a strange rule to
enforce upon the userspace doing the filesystem management wouldn't it?
Or am I thinking about this wrong...
-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
