From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Luedtke Subject: Are lock_super() and unlock_super() deprecated? Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:05:42 +0200 Message-ID: <1339956342.4747.3.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.nonattached.net ([193.160.39.60]:47645 "EHLO mail.nonattached.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757815Ab2FQSPQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:15:16 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:2001:4dd0:ffa8:10:21f:16ff:fe0a:29ae] (tunafish.nonattached.net [IPv6:2001:4dd0:ffa8:10:21f:16ff:fe0a:29ae]) by mail.nonattached.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49C7EDFEA for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:05:43 +0200 (CEST) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello everyone, short question: What am I supposed to use instead of lock_super() and unlock_super() in newly written filesystem drivers? fs/super.c: > 352 /* > 353 * Superblock locking. We really ought to get rid of these two. > 354 */ > 355 void lock_super(struct super_block * sb) > 356 { > 357 mutex_lock(&sb->s_lock); > 358 } > 359 > 360 void unlock_super(struct super_block * sb) > 361 { > 362 mutex_unlock(&sb->s_lock); > 363 } > 364 > 365 EXPORT_SYMBOL(lock_super); > 366 EXPORT_SYMBOL(unlock_super); Regards, Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de