Re: [PATCH v1 02/11] fs/proc/vmcore: replace vmcoredd_mutex by vmcore_mutex

[Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>]

On 11/15/24 at 11:04am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 15.11.24 10:32, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Let's use our new mutex instead.
> > 
> > Is there reason vmcoredd_mutex need be replaced and integrated with the
> > vmcore_mutex? Is it the reason the concurrent opening of vmcore could
> > happen with the old vmcoredd_mutex?
> 
> Yes, see the next patch in this series. But I consider this valuable on its
> own: there is no need to have two mutexes.
> 
> I can make that clearer in the patch description.

That would be great and more helpful. Because I didn't find the reason
about the lock integration and avoid concurrent opening of vmcore in
cover-letter and logs of the first few patches, I thought there have
been potential problems and the first few patches are used to fix them.