From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exofs: remove BKL from super operations
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:31:07 +0200
Message-ID: <20090823133107.GA25220@lst.de>
References: <4A8C12AE.2010801@panasas.com> <20090819234933.GB12113@lst.de> <4A91305E.1030909@panasas.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:47103 "EHLO verein.lst.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S934054AbZHWNbO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:31:14 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A91305E.1030909@panasas.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 03:04:46PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 08/20/2009 02:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Any chance you could also remove the lock_super usage once your start
> > revisiting the lock?  lock_super is never taken by the VFS anymore, so
> > you can easily replace it with fs-local locking.
> > 
> 
> OK Sure, thanks.
> 
> One question please?
> 
> I need a mutex_lock I can sleep on. Could I use the inode_lock associate
> with the root_inode. Or that could lead to dead-locks with the VFS?

It could lead to all kinds of lock dependency problems no one even
thinks about.

> (Or should I just allocate another mutex at the fs-sb-data?)

Yes.