Re: locking in sync_old_buffers
Dave Hansen (haveblue@us.ibm.com)
Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:23:13 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> If you're going to do this, then the BKL should be acquired
> in fs/super.c:write_super(), so the per-fs ->write_super
> functions do not see changed external locking rules.
>
> Possibly, fs/inode.c:write_inode() needs the same treatment.
> But Doc/filesystems/Locking says that lock_kernel() is not
> held across ->write_inode so there should be no need to take
> it on the kupdate path.
That sounds sane. I was just fishing for information before I go do
anything drastic.
> That's for 2.4. For 2.5, we'd like sync_old_buffers to just
> go away. Do you have time to test
>http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.5/2.5.8/everything.patch.gz
Absolutely. What else does it contain that I should watch out for?
--
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/