Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:13 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi>
Cc: tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove BKL from the bfs driver
Message-Id: <20080605114213.239d66aa.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1212690397-25693-1-git-send-email-dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi>
References: <1212690397-25693-1-git-send-email-dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 848
Lines: 20

On Thu,  5 Jun 2008 21:26:35 +0300
Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@movial.fi> wrote:

> This removes quite a few instances of BKL usage in the bfs
> driver. Given the purpose and the user base of this driver,
> I do not believe that a finer-granularity lock than the big
> fat filesystem-wide mutex I have implemented here is needed.

How well tested was this?  With lockdep enabled?

Because the new mutex cannot be taken recursively, whereas the BKL can.
And there's potential for ab/ba deadlocks with, for example, i_mutex.

However I don't see any such problems from a moderately intensive
review.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/