From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753380Ab0CXAY1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:24:27 -0400 Received: from crca.org.au ([74.207.252.120]:40877 "EHLO crca.org.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751734Ab0CXAY0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:24:26 -0400 X-Bogosity: Ham, spamicity=0.000000 Message-ID: <4BA95BEB.7040805@crca.org.au> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:25:15 +1100 From: Nigel Cunningham User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100301 Shredder/3.0.4pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Viro CC: Josef Bacik , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce freeze_super and thaw_super for the fsfreeze ioctl References: <20100323142200.GA2381@localhost.localdomain> <20100323142843.GG30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20100323143456.GC2381@localhost.localdomain> <20100323144828.GH30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20100323150301.GD2381@localhost.localdomain> <20100323150923.GI30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <4BA94157.6090907@crca.org.au> <20100323231802.GL30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <4BA95454.1080400@crca.org.au> <4BA95501.4000806@crca.org.au> <20100324002117.GN30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100324002117.GN30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi. On 24/03/10 11:21, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:55:45AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: >> Hi again. >> >> On 24/03/10 10:52, Nigel Cunningham wrote: >>>> I've stayed away from TuxOnIce flamefests and I've no idea how >>>> representative >>>> that snippet is, but if it *does* match the general code quality in >>>> there... >>>> Ouch. >>> >>> Locking isn't necessary because of the freezing. >> >> Err, freezer, I mean. > > Even leaving aside the accuracy of that (and I seriously doubt it), this > is completely wrong since *code* *gets* *copied*. Ok. That's a fair enough point. I'll add locking. Regards, Nigel