From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exofs: remove BKL from super operations
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:04:46 +0300
Message-ID: <4A91305E.1030909@panasas.com>
References: <4A8C12AE.2010801@panasas.com> <20090819234933.GB12113@lst.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ip67-152-220-67.z220-152-67.customer.algx.net ([67.152.220.67]:49953
	"EHLO daytona.int.panasas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933529AbZHWMEv (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:04:51 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20090819234933.GB12113@lst.de>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

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?

I'll test it out anyway, but out of your head could it lead to problems?
All I need is sleepable serialization of exofs_sync_fs() from itself.

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

Boaz