No need to do lock_super() for exclusion in generic_shutdown_super()
We can't run into contention on it. All other callers of lock_super() either hold s_umount (and we have it exclusive) or hold an active reference to superblock in question, which prevents the call of generic_shutdown_super() while the reference is held. So we can replace lock_super(s) with get_fs_excl() in generic_shutdown_super() (and corresponding change for unlock_super(), of course). Since ext4 expects s_lock held for its put_super, take lock_super() into it. The rest of filesystems do not care at all. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Este cometimento está contido em:
@@ -576,6 +576,7 @@ static void ext4_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
|
||||
struct ext4_super_block *es = sbi->s_es;
|
||||
int i, err;
|
||||
|
||||
lock_super(sb);
|
||||
if (sb->s_dirt)
|
||||
ext4_write_super(sb);
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -645,7 +646,6 @@ static void ext4_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
|
||||
unlock_super(sb);
|
||||
kobject_put(&sbi->s_kobj);
|
||||
wait_for_completion(&sbi->s_kobj_unregister);
|
||||
lock_super(sb);
|
||||
lock_kernel();
|
||||
kfree(sbi->s_blockgroup_lock);
|
||||
kfree(sbi);
|
||||
|
Criar uma nova questão referindo esta
Bloquear um utilizador