From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] ext3: remove lock/unlock super Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:19:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20120816191909.GC31346@thunk.org> References: <502CC4BA.3040702@gmail.com> <20120816163904.GA17526@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Marco Stornelli , bharrosh@panasas.com, bhalevy@tonian.com, Andrew Morton , adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp, mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Al Viro , hch@infradead.org, dushistov@mail.ru, osd-dev@open-osd.org, Linux Kernel , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Linux FS Devel To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:45091 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932106Ab2HPTTj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:19:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120816163904.GA17526@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:39:04PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 16-08-12 12:00:26, Marco Stornelli wrote: > > From: Marco Stornelli > > > > Replaced lock and unlock super with a new fs mutex s_lock. > Hum, is the lock needed at all? Remount & unfreeze both run with s_umount > held for writing. Thus we already have exclusion between these two calls. > The same seems to hold for ext4 BTW. Agreed, it's not clear lock_super() is needed at all for ext4 at this point. - Ted