From: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." Subject: (un)lock_kernel() ? Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from hammerhead.shentel.net ([204.111.1.228]:46907 "EHLO hammerhead.shentel.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966333AbXDDM5k (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:57:40 -0400 Received: from sigma.j-a-k-j.com (jakj@n152s125.ntc.blacksburg.shentel.net [204.111.152.125]) by hammerhead.shentel.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l34Cvc3E022805 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:57:39 -0400 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Why does ext4_fill_super release the BKL on entry and take it on both normal and abnormal exit? As far as I can see, ext4_fill_super is called by get_sb_bdev, which calls the ->get_sb method without the BKL, and ext4_get_sb calls get_sb_bdev without the BKL. And the ext2 code does not touch the BKL in ext2_fill_super. Is the VFS code going to be changed somewhere in the future and it's being anticipated, or is this a bug?