xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Takashi Sato <t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 15:32:11 -0400
Cc: "linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx" <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20080522175020t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20080522175020t-sato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
> +     if (test_and_set_bit(BD_FREEZE_OP, &bdev->bd_state))
> +             return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> +
> +     sb = get_super_without_lock(bdev);
> +
> +     /* If super_block has been already frozen, return. */
> +     if (sb && sb->s_frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) {
> +             put_super(sb);
> +             clear_bit(BD_FREEZE_OP, &bdev->bd_state);
> +             return sb;
> +     }

The BD_FREEZE_OP flag in the block_device already prevents multiple
freezes for a singe block device, so there is no need for this
additional check and the get_super_without_lock helper.

>       down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);

And with that flag bd_mount_sem is also obsolete for preventing the
multiple freeze operations.  We still need investigate what
synchronization we need vs unmount which also takes bd_mount_sem without
every having document what it exactly protects.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>