From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo on
Replace the introduced i_sem by an i_mutex in the filesystem locking
documentation. This was introduced [1] after all occurrences were
already replaced in the same text [2]. However, the term "inode
semaphore" has not been replaced then, and it's replaced now.

[1] afddba49d18f346e5cc2938b6ed7c512db18ca68
[2] a7bc02f4f47fd0e7860c6589f0ad000d1476f7a3

Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo(a)holoscopio.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin(a)suse.de>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy(a)nokia.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap(a)xenotime.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch(a)lst.de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
Documentation/filesystems/Locking | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
index 06bbbed..af16080 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ prototypes:
locking rules:
All except set_page_dirty may block

- BKL PageLocked(page) i_sem
+ BKL PageLocked(page) i_mutex
writepage: no yes, unlocks (see below)
readpage: no yes, unlocks
sync_page: no maybe
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ check_flags: no
implementations. If your fs is not using generic_file_llseek, you
need to acquire and release the appropriate locks in your ->llseek().
For many filesystems, it is probably safe to acquire the inode
-semaphore. Note some filesystems (i.e. remote ones) provide no
+mutex. Note some filesystems (i.e. remote ones) provide no
protection for i_size so you will need to use the BKL.

Note: ext2_release() was *the* source of contention on fs-intensive
--
1.7.1

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