From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH vfs-2.6:for-next] vfs: remount_fs BKL pushdown Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 02:26:30 -0400 Message-ID: <20090506062630.GA28560@infradead.org> References: <1240646945-7970-1-git-send-email-abogani@texware.it> <20090425082349.GA2475@infradead.org> <20090505133743.GA663@infradead.org> <63a49ef40905051239r61fe7f4cg6f24e13df30dc940@mail.gmail.com> <20090505204352.GA23343@infradead.org> <20090506035138.GP8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alessio Igor Bogani , Jonathan Corbet , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , LFSDEV , Matthew Wilcox , Ingo Molnar To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:44897 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751253AbZEFG0i (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2009 02:26:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090506035138.GP8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 04:51:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Actually, I'm not sure that you are right. Especially if we go for your > "always hold s_umount for sync_filesystem()"; in that case we are guaranteed > that we'll have an exclusion between ->write_super() and that sucker, so > there's no reason to push it down into filesystems that do not use lock_super() The interesting cases are locking against internal s_lock which at least extN needs or ->write_super. And I'd really be rather safe than sorry and audit individual filesystems than introducing bug in an obscure one.