xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] lockfs patch for 2.6

To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockfs patch for 2.6
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 18:52:54 +0000
Cc: mason@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040314104439.7c381a09.akpm@osdl.org>; from akpm@osdl.org on Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 10:44:39AM -0800
Mail-followup-to: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, mason@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <1078867885.25075.1458.camel@watt.suse.com> <20040313131447.A25900@infradead.org> <1079191213.4187.243.camel@watt.suse.com> <20040313163346.A27004@infradead.org> <20040314140032.A8901@infradead.org> <20040314104439.7c381a09.akpm@osdl.org>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 10:44:39AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > + * This takes the block device bd_mount_sem to make sure no new mounts
> >  + * happen on bdev until unlockfs is called.  If a super is found on this
> >  + * block device, we hould a read lock on the s->s_umount sem to make sure
> >  + * nobody unmounts until the snapshot creation is done
> >  + */
> >  +struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct block_device *bdev)
> 
> I think you do need s_umount, as the comments say.  But this patch doesn't
> touch it.

get_super takes it for us.


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