Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 12:58 pm

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:28:19 +0900
Takashi Sato <t-sato@yk.jp.nec.com> wrote:


FIFREEZE is 119, but a few lines above we have

#define BLKDISCARD _IO(0x12,119)

Should we be using 120 and 121 here?


"freeze" is not an adequate description of what this protects.  I think
it's only the modification and testing of bd_freeze_count, isn't it?

If so, all this could be done more neatly by removing the lock,
switching to atomic_t and using our (rich) atomic_t operations.

otoh, perhaps it protects more than this, in which case the lock
can/should be switched to a `struct mutex'?


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Takashi Sato, (Mon Aug 18, 5:28 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Andrew Morton, (Thu Aug 21, 12:58 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Andreas Dilger, (Fri Aug 22, 12:09 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Aug 22, 11:14 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Takashi Sato, (Fri Aug 29, 2:36 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Takashi Sato, (Fri Aug 29, 2:37 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Eric Sandeen, (Thu Sep 4, 9:55 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature, Takashi Sato, (Thu Sep 11, 3:58 am)