Re: [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 20:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ds wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >   
> >> * Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>     
> >>>   On debugging I found out that,"dmsetup suspend <device name>" calls 
> >>> "freeze_bdev()",which locks "bd_mount_mutex" to make sure that no new 
> >>> mounts happen on bdev until thaw_bdev() is called.
> >>>   This "thaw_bdev()" is getting called when we resume the device 
> >>> through "dmsetup resume <device-name>".
> >>>   Hence we have 2 processes,one of which locks 
> >>> "bd_mount_mutex"(dmsetup suspend) and Another(dmsetup resume) unlocks 
> >>> it.
> >>>       
> >> hm, to me this seems quite a fragile construct - even if the 
> >> mutex-debugging warning is worked around by reverting to a semaphore.
> >>
> >> 	Ingo
> >>     
> >
> > Ingo, what do you feel is fragile about this?  It seems like this is a
> > reasonable way to go, except that maybe a down_trylock would be good if
> > a 2nd process tries to freeze while it's already frozen...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Eric
> >   
> Ingo, As per the discussion resending the patch with down_trylock.

Hi,

I still think that effectively exporting this semaphore to userspace is
a big design mistake; but at least it can't be a mutex for this reason
so the patch is sane in that regard...

Greetings,
   Arjan van de Ven

-
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/