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