xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH V3] Make inode64 a remountable option

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] Make inode64 a remountable option
From: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0300
In-reply-to: <20120817122437.GC2502@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <1345171178-10447-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120817122437.GC2502@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 08:24:37AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:39:38PM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > Actually, there is no reason about why a user must umount and mount a XFS
> > filesystem to enable 'inode64' option. So, this patch makes this a 
> > remountable
> > option.
> 
> What does protect concurrent updates of m_flags?
> 
I don't think there is any lock protection around m_flags, I did a search on the
code and couldn't find anything protecting it. At a first glance though, I don't
think there is a need to protect it once this flag is managed only during super
operations - mount/umount/remount -
Also, I *think* the sb->s_umount rw_semaphore is enough for protection, once it
protects the whole mount/umount operation, but I'm 100% sure of it.

> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

-- 
--Carlos

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