From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from a.ns.miles-group.at ([95.130.255.143] helo=radon.swed.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Zg6z6-0002SQ-D6 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:07:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBIFS: Add freeze support in ubifs To: Dongsheng Yang , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dedekind1@gmail.com References: <1443321561-20581-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <5607A387.9050703@nod.at> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:06:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1443321561-20581-1-git-send-email-yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Yang, Am 27.09.2015 um 04:39 schrieb Dongsheng Yang: > We need to do nothing in ubifs, as all is already done in vfs. Please more details. :-) The current changelog reads like every filesystem should implement it as nop. Which is obviously not the case. fs/super.c checks whether ->freeze_fs() is implemented, so a nop-implementation does not make sense here. I bet you hit this in fs/ioctl.c: /* If filesystem doesn't support freeze feature, return. */ if (sb->s_op->freeze_fs == NULL && sb->s_op->freeze_super == NULL) return -EOPNOTSUPP; Correct? And the most important detail is missing, why is UBIFS allowed to have a nop-implementation? Thanks, //richard