From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 -tip] umount_begin BKL pushdown Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:18:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20090423191817.GW8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1240513925-5603-1-git-send-email-abogani@texware.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jonathan Corbet , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , LFSDEV To: Alessio Igor Bogani Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:45739 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758521AbZDWTSY (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:18:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1240513925-5603-1-git-send-email-abogani@texware.it> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:12:00PM +0200, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote: > Push the BKL acquisition from vfs to every specific filesystems > with hope that it can be eliminated in a second moment. > > The first 4 patches add BKL lock into umount_begin() functions (for > the filesystems that have this handler). The last one remove > lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel() from fs/namespace.c (the only point > that invoke umount_begin() funtcions). I'd rather collapse all these patches together; no point doing that per-fs (for all 4 of them). And CIFS side is bogus. Another thing: -tip is no place for that. I can put that into VFS tree, provided that comments above are dealt with.