Removed lock/unlock super.
Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
---
fs/exofs/super.c | 4 ----
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exofs/super.c b/fs/exofs/super.c
index 59e3bbf..5e59280 100644
--- a/fs/exofs/super.c
+++ b/fs/exofs/super.c
@@ -389,8 +389,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
if (unlikely(ret))
goto out;
- lock_super(sb);
-
ios->length = offsetof(struct exofs_fscb, s_dev_table_oid);
memset(fscb, 0, ios->length);
fscb->s_nextid = cpu_to_le64(sbi->s_nextid);
@@ -406,8 +404,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
if (unlikely(ret))
EXOFS_ERR("%s: ore_write failed.\n", __func__);
-
- unlock_super(sb);
out:
EXOFS_DBGMSG("s_nextid=0x%llx ret=%d\n", _LLU(sbi->s_nextid), ret);
ore_put_io_state(ios);
--
1.7.3.4
On 10/06/2012 03:38 AM, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> Removed lock/unlock super.
>
Hi Marco
I was sure you guys where pushing this patch through some
vfs tree. (Hence my Acked-by below). I have just sent Linus
a pull request for the 3.7 Kernel. I could perhaps append this
one and resend.
I do want this patch, and it is completely independent and can
go through my tree. Please tell me what do you want to do with
this patch, should I push it? Or are you pushing it through Al
Thanks
Boaz
> Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/exofs/super.c | 4 ----
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exofs/super.c b/fs/exofs/super.c
> index 59e3bbf..5e59280 100644
> --- a/fs/exofs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/exofs/super.c
> @@ -389,8 +389,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> if (unlikely(ret))
> goto out;
>
> - lock_super(sb);
> -
> ios->length = offsetof(struct exofs_fscb, s_dev_table_oid);
> memset(fscb, 0, ios->length);
> fscb->s_nextid = cpu_to_le64(sbi->s_nextid);
> @@ -406,8 +404,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> if (unlikely(ret))
> EXOFS_ERR("%s: ore_write failed.\n", __func__);
>
> -
> - unlock_super(sb);
> out:
> EXOFS_DBGMSG("s_nextid=0x%llx ret=%d\n", _LLU(sbi->s_nextid), ret);
> ore_put_io_state(ios);
>
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 02:58:05PM -0700, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Hi Marco
>
> I was sure you guys where pushing this patch through some
> vfs tree. (Hence my Acked-by below). I have just sent Linus
> a pull request for the 3.7 Kernel. I could perhaps append this
> one and resend.
>
> I do want this patch, and it is completely independent and can
> go through my tree. Please tell me what do you want to do with
> this patch, should I push it? Or are you pushing it through Al
This series is slated for tonight push; I'm testing the tree right
now...
Il 09/10/2012 01:24, Al Viro ha scritto:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 02:58:05PM -0700, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> Hi Marco
>>
>> I was sure you guys where pushing this patch through some
>> vfs tree. (Hence my Acked-by below). I have just sent Linus
>> a pull request for the 3.7 Kernel. I could perhaps append this
>> one and resend.
>>
>> I do want this patch, and it is completely independent and can
>> go through my tree. Please tell me what do you want to do with
>> this patch, should I push it? Or are you pushing it through Al
>
> This series is slated for tonight push; I'm testing the tree right
> now...
>
Thanks Al. For me there aren't problems to push it via Al or via other
trees. For example the patch for ext4 is in Ted's tree. You tell me what
you want and I do it :)
Marco
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:55:12PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> Thanks Al. For me there aren't problems to push it via Al or via
> other trees. For example the patch for ext4 is in Ted's tree. You
> tell me what you want and I do it :)
Um... Then I'd better drop the ext4 part and hold the final one back,
right? Are there other commits I need to skip to avoid duplicates with
the stuff already in other trees?
Just to confirm, the ext4 lock_super removal is commit 07724f98978a,
and Linus has already pulled it into his tree.
- Ted
2012/10/9 Al Viro <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:55:12PM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>
>> Thanks Al. For me there aren't problems to push it via Al or via
>> other trees. For example the patch for ext4 is in Ted's tree. You
>> tell me what you want and I do it :)
>
> Um... Then I'd better drop the ext4 part and hold the final one back,
> right? Are there other commits I need to skip to avoid duplicates with
> the stuff already in other trees?
No, or at least I know that only Ted (for ext4) has included the patch
in his tree, so no other problem.
Marco