lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:

> > i'd suggest to simply BUG() in schedule() if the superblock lock is held
> > not directly by lock_super. Holding the superblock lock is IMO quite rude
> > anyway (for performance and latency) - is there any place where we hold it
> > for a long time and it's unavoidable?
>
> Ingo, schedule() has no bloody business _knowing_ about superblock
> locks in the first place. Yes, ext2 should not bother taking it at
> all. For completely unrelated reasons.

i only suggested this as a debugging helper, instead of the suggested
ext2_getblk() BUG() helper. Obviously schedule() has no business knowing
about filesystem locks.

Ingo

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.039 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site