From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] fsfreeze: emergency thaw will deadlock on s_umount
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:30:27 +0900
Message-ID: <4FFBF633.1020004@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <1341908216.11559.6.camel@nexus.lab.ntt.co.jp> <1341908615.11559.13.camel@nexus.lab.ntt.co.jp> <20120710090918.GA13539@quack.suse.cz> <20120710091352.GB13539@quack.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.148]:65398 "EHLO
	tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753990Ab2GJJak (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:30:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20120710091352.GB13539@quack.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On 2012/07/10 18:13, Jan Kara wrote:

> On Tue 10-07-12 11:09:18, Jan Kara wrote:
> ...
>> Also looking into the code, it seems emergency thaw won't be able to thaw
>> filesystems frozen with FIFREEZE ioctl (bd_fsfreeze_count will be zero)?
>> Calling thaw_super() directly would solve this but then we'd leave
>> bd_fzfreeze_count inconsistent... It's a mess with these two types of
>> freezing.
>    Ah, I see you try to address this in the next patch. So scratch this
> comment.

Ok. I would appreciate if you could take a look at all the patches.

By the way, do you want me to rebase on top of your tree?

Thanks,
Fernando