Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:20:40 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
|  |