No need to do lock_super() for exclusion in generic_shutdown_super()

Browse source

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>

...

This commit is contained in:

Al Viro 2009-05-05 22:10:44 -04:00

parent 62c6943b4b

commit a9e220f832

2 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions

Show all changes Ignore whitespace when comparing lines Ignore changes in amount of whitespace Ignore changes in whitespace at EOL

Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2

fs/ext4/super.c

View file

4

fs/super.c

View file