[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] 2.6.3-udm5


> Revision 19:
>   dm_suspend(): Don't unlock the fs if a race with another suspend is
>   detected.

I've got a question: Is it stupid to move the __unlock_fs from dm_resume
to the end of dm_suspend? My webserver loves to deadlock when trying to
snapshot the root volume without it... unfortunately I don't have direct
access to the machine so I can't find out what exactly happens (it
happened twice and I'm not to excited trying it too often because the
watchdog reboots the machine hard after some minutes).

Trying to avoid having a filesystem locked between two syscalls is
probably not a too bad idea. If the filesystem is unlocked after
BLOCK_IO is set the filesystem will be in a clean state and new requests
will be deferred and submitted to the new table after resume anyway.
This doesn't make a difference with the suspend syscall but seems to do

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]