Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:16:17 -0400 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] udf: Replace bkl with a mutex for protect udf_sb_info struct |
| |
> + mutex_lock(&sbi->lock); > result = udf_relocate_blocks(inode->i_sb, > old_block, &new_block); > + mutex_unlock(&sbi->lock);
Moving the locking inside udf_relocate_blocks would be cleaner.
> @@ -570,7 +569,7 @@ static int udf_remount_fs(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *options) > if (!udf_parse_options(options, &uopt, true)) > return -EINVAL; > > - lock_kernel(); > + mutex_lock(&sbi->lock);
What are you protecting against here? Concurrent remount calls are protects against by the VFS. Is there any reader that takes sbi->lock to get a consistent view of the various options? It doesn't seem you introduce one in this series, so it seems we could do fine without any locking.
> - unlock_kernel(); > return -ENOMEM; > } > > + mutex_init(&sbi->lock); > + mutex_lock(&sbi->lock);
What are you locking against here? I can't fine anything that puts the superblock on a global list in fill_super, and I can't find any code that would look a superblock up that's not fully set up. I don't think synchronization here in fill_super is needed at all.
> + /* Serialize writer access, replace the old bkl */ > + struct mutex lock;
Same comment as for the per-inode mutex applies here, too.
| |