Re: [CHECKER] a couple potential deadlocks in 2.4.5-ac8

Linus Torvalds
2001-06-09T20:43:26Z

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> True, but... I can easily see the situation when ->foo() and ->bar()
> both call a helper function which needs BKL for a small piece of code.

I'd hope that we can fix the small helper functions to not need BKL -
there are already many circumstances where you can't use the BKL anyway
(ie you already hold a spinlock - I'd really like to have the rule that
the BKL is the "outermost" of all spinlocks, as we could in theory some
day use it as a point to schedule away on BKL contention).

> ObUnrelated: fs/super.c is getting to the point where it naturally
> falls into two files - one that deals with mount cache and all things
> vfsmount-related, mount tree manipulations, etc. and another that deals
> with superblocks. Mind if I split the thing?

Sure. As long as there is some sane naming and not too many new non-static
functions. Maybe just "fs/mount.c" for the vfsmount caches etc.

Linus