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

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
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132124846728745&w=2

Ah, I found mutex_destroy() call in hugetlbfs_destroy_inode() should be
removed.
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:0.092 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site