From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
A
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:49:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090426114904.GA9212@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090426114608.GC10248@mit.edu>
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 07:46:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> That's true, but the patch also takes out the release/reacquire in in
> ext4_remount (which was particularly ugly, belch).
Sorry, missed the second hunk of the patch.
> So even if
> write_super gets called on an r/o filesystem (why?!?),
No good reason really. Hopefully we'll sort all that out soon.
> we should be
> safe because remount will hold lock_super() throughout the entire
> remount operation.
>
> We could delay this cleanup until you clean the mess with write_super,
> but I don't think it would be harmful in removing the
> lock_super()/unlock_super() pair in ext4_mark_recovery_complete(), and
> the unlock_super()/lock_super() pair in ext4_remount before then. Am
> I missing something?
No, I was just missing the second hunk of the patch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-26 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-26 3:49 [PATCH RFC 0/5] Eliminate most lock_super() calls from ext4 Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 1/5] ext4: Avoid races caused by on-line resizing and SMP memory reordering Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 2/5] ext4: Remove outdated comment about lock_super() Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 4/5] ext4: Replace lock/unlock_super() with an explicit lock for the orphan list Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] ext4: Replace lock/unlock_super() with an explicit lock for resizing Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-28 16:02 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-28 15:52 ` [PATCH 4/5] ext4: Replace lock/unlock_super() with an explicit lock for the orphan list Jan Kara
2009-04-26 7:07 ` [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-26 11:46 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-26 11:49 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2009-04-28 16:13 ` [PATCH 2/5] ext4: Remove outdated comment about lock_super() Jan Kara
2009-04-28 16:23 ` [PATCH 1/5] ext4: Avoid races caused by on-line resizing and SMP memory reordering Jan Kara
2009-04-28 17:14 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-29 9:28 ` Jan Kara
2009-05-01 13:55 ` [PATCH v2] " Theodore Ts'o
2009-05-03 17:08 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090426114904.GA9212@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).