Hi,
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:43, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> Just a question here. With s_lock held by the remount code, we're
> altering the struct super_block, and believing we're safe. We try to
> acquire it inside the resize functions, because we're trying to modify
> this same data. Thus, if we rely on another lock, aren't we probably
> messing up something ?
The two different uses of the superblock lock are really quite
different; I don't see any particular problem with using two different
locks for the two different things. Mount and the namespace code are
not locking the same thing --- the fact that the resize code uses the
superblock lock is really a historical side-effect of the fact that we
used to use the same overloaded superblock lock in the ext2/ext3 block
allocation layers to guard bitmap access.
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |