From: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:31:08 -0600
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [GFS2] [Patch 4/10] Get rid of sd_statfs_mutex
In-Reply-To: <1197451112.3394.1.camel@menhir.chygwyn.com>
References: <1197421489.23671.36.camel@technetium.msp.redhat.com>
	<1197451112.3394.1.camel@menhir.chygwyn.com>
Message-ID: <1197473468.23671.78.camel@technetium.msp.redhat.com>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:18 +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> You can't do gfs2_trans_add_bh under a spinlock, but there is no reason
> why you can't just reverse the order of these two statements to fix it,
> 
> Steve.

Hi Steve,

If we reverse the two statements, the trans_add_bh is not protected at
all, which I assume was the purpose of the mutex in the first place.
I'm not sure this is buying us much anyway, so perhaps we should forget
it.

Regards,

Bob Peterson