From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:49:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20090426114904.GA9212@infradead.org> References: <1240717765-16572-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1240717765-16572-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1240717765-16572-3-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1240717765-16572-4-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20090426070713.GA17022@infradead.org> <20090426114608.GC10248@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Theodore Tso , Christoph Hellwig , Ext4 Developers List , Linux Kernel Developers List , A Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:34338 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753074AbZDZLtE (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:49:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090426114608.GC10248@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 07:46:08AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > That's true, but the patch also takes out the release/reacquire in in > ext4_remount (which was particularly ugly, belch). Sorry, missed the second hunk of the patch. > So even if > write_super gets called on an r/o filesystem (why?!?), No good reason really. Hopefully we'll sort all that out soon. > we should be > safe because remount will hold lock_super() throughout the entire > remount operation. > > We could delay this cleanup until you clean the mess with write_super, > but I don't think it would be harmful in removing the > lock_super()/unlock_super() pair in ext4_mark_recovery_complete(), and > the unlock_super()/lock_super() pair in ext4_remount before then. Am > I missing something? No, I was just missing the second hunk of the patch.