| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH V3] Make inode64 a remountable option |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:34:49 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <20120817144950.GA17092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1345171178-10447-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120817122437.GC2502@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120817144950.GA17092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:49:50AM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > 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. Seems like rw_semaphore takes care of it, and we already have a trace when setting XFS_MOUNT_FS_SHUTDOWN. I guess it's fine as is for now, but I'd love to have comment explaining why it's safe. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH V3] Make inode64 a remountable option, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS regression: Oops in xfs_buf_do_callbacks on xfstest 137, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH V3] Make inode64 a remountable option, Carlos Maiolino |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH V3] Make inode64 a remountable option, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |