doc: inode uses a mutex instead of a semaphore.
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@holoscopio.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
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 @@
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 @@
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