From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PTCH] push down lock_super and BKL into ->put_super
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:23:00 +0200
Message-ID: <20090506062300.GA12718@lst.de>
References: <20090505134036.GA4127@lst.de> <20090506020916.GN8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:45191 "EHLO verein.lst.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750789AbZEFGXB (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 May 2009 02:23:01 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090506020916.GN8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:09:16AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> As for this patch: we need to
> 	* replace lock_super/unlock_super() with get_fs_excl()/put_fs_excl()
> in the same places.

Nope.  See the discussion I had with Jens and other about what it
is good for.  It's for fs-central ressouces that are performance
critical for FS.  FS beeing shut down is per defintion not performance
critical.