Re: [PATCH vfs-2.6:for-next] vfs: remount_fs BKL pushdown

Al Viro
2009-05-06T06:48:42Z

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:26:30AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 04:51:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure that you are right. Especially if we go for your
> > "always hold s_umount for sync_filesystem()"; in that case we are guaranteed
> > that we'll have an exclusion between ->write_super() and that sucker, so
> > there's no reason to push it down into filesystems that do not use lock_super()
>
> The interesting cases are locking against internal s_lock which at least
> extN needs or ->write_super. And I'd really be rather safe than sorry
> and audit individual filesystems than introducing bug in an obscure one.

write_super() can *not* get contention against remount. That's the point.
And other that write_super, we have very few filesystems that even mention
lock_super() anywhere. Yes, ext3 and ext4. Also fat, sysv, ufs and hpfs.
That's it. Compare with the number of suckers that have write_super()
and especially remount_fs()...