On Wednesday, 8 November 2006 15:25, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:27:22PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > But it's trivial to detect this condition - if (sb->s_frozen != SB_UNFROZEN)
> > then the filesystem is already frozen and you shouldn't try to freeze
> > it again. It's simple to do, and the whole problem then just goes away....
>
> So is that another vote in support of explicitly supporting multiple concurrent
> freeze requests, letting them all succeed, and only thawing after the last one
> has requested its thaw? (It's not enough just to check SB_UNFROZEN - also need
> to track whether any other outstanding requests to avoid risk of it getting
> unfrozen while something independent believes it still to be frozen.)
So, I think, we need the following patch to fix freeze_filesystems().
Will it be enough to cover the interactions with dm?
Rafael
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
---
fs/buffer.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc5-mm1/fs/buffer.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc5-mm1.orig/fs/buffer.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc5-mm1/fs/buffer.c
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ void freeze_filesystems(void)
*/
list_for_each_entry_reverse(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
if (!sb->s_root || !sb->s_bdev ||
- (sb->s_frozen == SB_FREEZE_TRANS) ||
+ (sb->s_frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) ||
(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) ||
(sb->s_flags & MS_FROZEN))
continue;
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
