On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:52:49AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 13:43 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > .. > > > > > > > 5) ext3_write_end: > > > > Before write_begin/write_end patch set we have folowing locking > > > > order: > > > > stop_journal(handle); > > > > unlock_page(page); > > > > But now order is oposite: > > > > unlock_page(page); > > > > stop_journal(handle); > > > > Can we got any race condition now? I'm not sure is it actual > > > > problem, > > > > may be somebody cant describe this. > > > > > > Can we just change it to the original order? That would seem to be > > > safest unless one of the ext3 devs explicitly acks it. > Sorry, I've missed beginning of this thread. But what problems can > exactly cause this ordering change? ext3_journal_stop has no need to be > protected by the page lock - it can be even better that it's not > protected as it can trigger commit and all that would happen > unnecessarily under page lock...
Sure, if you think it is safe. I would rather it be done in a different patch though. - 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/
