1
0

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:
Al Viro
2009-05-05 22:10:44 -04:00
ascendente 62c6943b4b
cometimento a9e220f832
2 ficheiros modificados com 3 adições e 3 eliminações

Ver ficheiro

@@ -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);