On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:56:50PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:47:48AM -0200, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > > > > By the description and looking at commit c278531d39, this change isn't > > > > needed for 3.0 or 3.4 kernels (anything <= 3.6), they don't contain > > > > commit c278531d39. > > > > > > Ah, good catch. Should this be reverted from 3.0 and 3.4? > > > > I judge it as unecessary from what I saw so far, can ext4 developers > > and/or people in Cc confirm? It should be harmless, only consequence is > > an uneeded lock being taken now in 3.0/3.4 > > It's not worth it to revert it. The lock is being taken in a > completely non-fastpath, as well as guaranteed-to-be non-contended > code path. > > We're not requiring that the lock be taken in 3.0 and 3.4, but > arguably it's still a good idea to take it from a consistency point of > view.
Thanks for letting me know, I'll just leave it for now. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
