On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:30:04AM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 07:57, Al Viro wrote: > > > Note that fs users of file_fsync() are definitely not going to be > > involved into contention here - they need opened file => held active > > reference to superblock. > > > So we are left only with fs-internal asynchronous callers of > > lock_super(). UDF, UFS, sysv, hpfs and ext2 are out of question - they > > don't have async callers of that sort. ext3... maybe, I'm not familiar > > with resize code in there. In any case, that'd better be fixed in > > ext3 if such abuse exists. > > ext3 resize is like file_fsync() --- it's an ioctl, so there's a > guaranteed open file at that point. > > But while the resize code originally used lock_super() to protect from > races against allocation/deallocation, the ordering fixes in it means > that that's all safe anyway now. The lock_super() is currently only > really used to guard against two threads doing resize at the same time, > and if it's a problem, it would be trivial to use a different lock.
That's fine - it does make sense to move to separate lock, but in any case we are safe against generic_shutdown_super(). And it means that at least there (which is the source of UDF problems) lock_super() can die. - 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/
