[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.

    Al Viro:
    > Sigh... That patch is correct, but it has nothing to do with the locking
    > order violation that really *is* there. The only benefit would be to
    > get rid of the "deadlock is not possible" nonsense, since you would see
    > read/write vs. mmap instead of readdir vs. mmap in the traces. Locking

    How do you think about this patch?

    Re: [RFC 0/2] locking order of mm->mmap_sem and various FS

    Ah, I found mutex_destroy() call in hugetlbfs_destroy_inode() should be
    If you think this approach is good, then I'd post a revised patch.

    J. R. Okajima

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-17 07:49    [W:0.038 / U:55.792 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site