From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PTCH] push down lock_super and BKL into ->put_super
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 07:46:22 +0100
Message-ID: <20090506064622.GQ8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20090505134036.GA4127@lst.de> <20090506020916.GN8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20090506062300.GA12718@lst.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:46969 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754637AbZEFGqW (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 May 2009 02:46:22 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090506062300.GA12718@lst.de>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 08:23:00AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

FS blocking writeback may very well be, though.

In any case, the point is that we should separate get_fs_excl() from
exclusion there and kill exclusion part for everything except ext4.

_Then_ we can deal with fs_excl separately.