Hi, On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:43, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> Just a question here. With s_lock held by the remount code, we're > altering the struct super_block, and believing we're safe. We try to > acquire it inside the resize functions, because we're trying to modify > this same data. Thus, if we rely on another lock, aren't we probably > messing up something ? The two different uses of the superblock lock are really quite different; I don't see any particular problem with using two different locks for the two different things. Mount and the namespace code are not locking the same thing --- the fact that the resize code uses the superblock lock is really a historical side-effect of the fact that we used to use the same overloaded superblock lock in the ext2/ext3 block allocation layers to guard bitmap access. --Stephen - 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/
