Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature

Takashi Sato
2008-04-28T13:00:54Z

Hi,

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:31:23PM +0900, Takashi Sato wrote:
>> + /* Initialize semaphore for freeze. */
>> + sema_init(&bdev->bd_freeze_sem, 1);
>
> The freezing process is already protected by bd_mount_sem, so I don't
> think there's need for another one.
>
[...]
>> down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
>> sb = get_super(bdev);
>
> I think the protection against double freezes would be better done by
> using a trylock on bd_mount_sem.

bd_mount_sem can protect against only freezes and cannot protect against
unfreezes. If multiple unfreezes run in parallel, the multiple up() for
bd_mount_sem might occur incorrectly.

> In fact after that it could be changed
> from a semaphore to a simple test_and_set_bit.

I will consider using test_and_set_bit.

>> error = -ENOTTY;
>> break;
>> +
>> + case FIFREEZE: {
>
> This would be better to split intot a small helper ala ioctl_fibmap()
>
>> + case FITHAW: {
>
> Same here.

OK. I will split small helper functions.

Cheers, Takashi