![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Monday October 9, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 11:00 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > On Friday October 6, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl wrote: > > > > > > Stick NFS sockets in their own class to avoid some lockdep warnings. > > > NFS sockets are never exposed to user-space, and will hence not trigger > > > certain code paths that would otherwise pose deadlock scenarios. > > > > I'm a bit bothered that the changelog entry does mention what sort of > > lockdep warning are begin avoided, > > These: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/13/84 Wouldn't have hurt to have that link in the changelog... or maybe an excerpt? That is very much an nfs-client issue, so reclassifying the server-side sockets seems irrelevant. Doesn't cause any harm though I suppose. > > > and that 'svc_reclassify_socket' > > doesn't contain the work 'lock', yet is it really the locks that are > > being reclassified. > > Hmm, good point, shall I do s/reclassify_socket/reclassify_sock_lock/ ? > If you want to keep that function, then yes. Thanks, NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-09 10:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||