[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
- From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw sisk pl>
- Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm osdl org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen redhat com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, Srinivasa DS <srinivasa in ibm com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo elte hu>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:49:51 +0000
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:05:49AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> But freeze_bdev() is supposed to return the result of get_super(bdev)
> _unconditionally_. Moreover, in its current form freeze_bdev() _cannot_
> _fail_, so I don't see how this change doesn't break any existing code.
> For example freeze_filesystems() (recently added to -mm) will be broken
> if the down_trylock() is unsuccessful.
I hadn't noticed that -mm patch. I'll take a look. Up to now, device-mapper
(via dmsetup) and xfs (via xfs_freeze, which dates from before device-mapper
handled this automatically) were the only users. Only one freeze should be
issued at once. A freeze is a temporary thing, normally used while creating a
snapshot. (One problem we still have is lots of old documentation on the web
advising people to run xfs_freeze before creating device-mapper snapshots.)
You're right that the down_trylock idea is more trouble than it's worth and
should be scrapped.
Alasdair
--
agk redhat com
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]