From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] remove BKL from inode_setattr Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:41:22 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3DAAF3B2.24158D49@digeo.com> References: <3DAA6587.2A4C24B0@digeo.com> <1034604439.25231.9.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Hugh Dickins , lkml , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Steve Lord List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Steve Lord wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 01:34, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > The number of filsystems which do not take the bkl in truncate/setattr > > is in fact quite small. Here's the patch which removes all doubt: > > > > > > > > > > fs/affs/file.c | 13 ++++++++----- > > fs/attr.c | 2 -- > > fs/cifs/inode.c | 7 ++++++- > > fs/jfs/file.c | 3 +++ > > fs/reiserfs/file.c | 2 ++ > > fs/smbfs/proc.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- > > fs/sysv/itree.c | 6 +++++- > > fs/xfs/linux/xfs_iops.c | 11 +++++++++-- > > 8 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > XFS deliberately does not take the BKL - anywhere. Our setattr > code is doing its own locking. You just added the BKL to a > bunch of xfs operations which do not need it. Now, vmtruncate > may need it, itself, but if vmtruncate does not, then the xfs > callout from vmtruncate certainly does not. > Sorry, but that is standard "bkl migration" methodology. You had it before, so you get it after. It is not my role to change XFS locking. Anyway, I don't think these patches are going anywhere.