From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Whitehouse Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the gfs2 tree Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:58:51 +0100 Message-ID: <1243418331.29604.445.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090527115253.37abd576.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34534 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756238AbZE0J7Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2009 05:59:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090527115253.37abd576.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Al Viro , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig Hi, On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 11:52 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in > fs/gfs2/ops_super.c between commit > 9e6e0a128bca0a151d8d3fbd9459b22fc21cfebb ("GFS2: Merge mount.c and > ops_super.c into super.c") from the gfs2 tree and commits > 17af8f24a7750ea3d947904f97eb6dfacf9a88aa ("gfs2: remove ->write_super and > stop maintaining ->s_dirt") and 8123178eb9ca12cde31a95170746e15a79528a62 > ("push BKL down into ->put_super") from the vfs tree. > > The former commit removed the file. I have mechanically applied the > changes in the latter two commits to fs/gfs2/super.c (see below) and can > carry this as a merge fix as necessary. > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au > Thanks for fixing this up. > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/super.c b/fs/gfs2/super.c > index 40bcc37..c8930b3 100644 > --- a/fs/gfs2/super.c > +++ b/fs/gfs2/super.c > @@ -719,6 +719,8 @@ static void gfs2_put_super(struct super_block *sb) > int error; > struct gfs2_jdesc *jd; > > + lock_kernel(); > + > /* Unfreeze the filesystem, if we need to */ > > mutex_lock(&sdp->sd_freeze_lock); > @@ -785,17 +787,8 @@ restart: > > /* At this point, we're through participating in the lockspace */ > gfs2_sys_fs_del(sdp); > -} Al/Christoph, what is the purpose of the lock_kernel() ? I don't see why this is required. What is it protecting against? Steve.