Message-ID: <4AF9D6EE.1070205@lougher.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:11:10 +0000
From: Phillip Lougher <phillip@lougher.demon.co.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
CC: jblunck@suse.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthew@wil.cx, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: BKL: Remove BKL from Squashfs
References: <E1N5L6K-0008LW-6y@dylan.lougher.demon.co.uk> <20091110121511.5adca8a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20091110121511.5adca8a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1256
Lines: 33

Andrew Morton wrote:

> 
> So someone has decided to remove lots of lock_kernel()'s but chose to
> leave the squashfs_put_super() ones behind.
> 
> Why did they do that?  Your patch effectively asserts that their
> decision was incorrect.
> 


This patch was prompted by Jan Blunck's "Push down BKL to the filesystems" patch
series, where he firstly pushes the BKL down to individual filesystems
(even if they don't need it) , and then successively removes them
(on a one patch per filesystem basis) in later patches.

See http://lwn.net/Articles/359887/

His large patch pushed the BKL down to squashfs_fill_super().  He didn't send a
later patch removing them.  The BKL pushdown is unnecessary in squashfs_fill_super(),
because it isn't protecting any shared state. The BKL in squashfs_put_super() is mine.
After reviewing Jan's BKL patches I realised it was unnecessary, and it shouldn't
be there.

The patch should be reviewed in the context that it is intended for Jan's
BKL removal patch series.

Phillip
--
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/