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: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:08:25 +0900
Message-ID: <4FFE3199.9080209@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> <4FFBF633.1020004@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20120710121536.GE13539@quack.suse.cz> <4FFCE71D.6010707@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20120711090637.GD1316@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 tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.147]:48120 "EHLO
	tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1758524Ab2GLCIt (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:08:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20120711090637.GD1316@quack.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Jan,

On 2012/07/11 18:06, Jan Kara wrote:

>> By the way, is there anything specific in patch 2
>> (apart from the conditional locking ugliness) that you want
>> to me to change? Maybe resolve the conflicts with your patch
>> set?
>    I would be happier if you based your patches on my patch set (less work
> for me ;). OTOH your patches are simpler so Al might decide to merge them
> first. So all in all my opinion doesn't matter much here. It is Al who
> decides...

I will rebase against Al's vfs tree. If your patches get merged first
I do not mind resolving the merge conflicts you mentioned.

>> Ok. Could you get your Acked-by or Reviewed-by for the changes
>> you agree with?
>    Please fix the patch 1 and the conditional locking in patch 2 (that will
> also require changes to other patches in the series - they might be smaller
> if you reorder patches as I suggested). Then I'll check the whole series
> and can give you my Reviewed-by.

Ok, I will fix patch 1 and 2 (probably without reordering) and repost.

Thank you again for your comments!

Regards,
Fernando