Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/3 v2.6.39-rc7] block: make disk_block_events()properly wait for work cancellation

[Tejun Heo]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 03:40:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Spinlock inside mutex seemed a bit strange but yeah that probably is
> > the simpliest way.
> 
> Do you really even need the spinlock at all?

There were sites which called disk_unblock/check_events() with
bdevlock held, which was why it was made spinlock in the first place.
Hmmm... they're not there anymore.

> Just make the semaphore protect the count - and you're done.

Yeah, with that gone, we don't even need the open-coding inside
disk_check_events().  It can simply call syncing block and unblock.
But, do you want that in -rc7?  Unnecessarily complicated as the
current code may be, converting the lock to mutex is a larger change
than adding an outer mutex and I think it would be better to do that
during the next cycle.

Thanks.

--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/