From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ->write_super lock_super pushdown Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 05:12:19 +0100 Message-ID: <20090512041219.GM8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20090511213503.GB19326@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:58506 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756066AbZELEMS (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 00:12:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090511213503.GB19326@lst.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:35:03PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Push down lock_super into ->write_super instances and remove it from the > caller. > > Following filesystem don't need ->s_lock in ->write_super and are skipped: > > * bfs, nilfs2 - no other uses of s_lock and have internal locks in > ->write_super > * ext2 - uses BKL in ext2_write_super and has internal calls without s_lock > * reiserfs - no other uses of s_lock as has reiserfs_write_lock (BKL) in > ->write_super Ehh... I'm not at all sure that reiserfs one is OK, but we are not exposing any races that didn't exist before ;-/