[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())
    Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
    > Eric Sandeen <> wrote:
    >> Andrew Morton wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
    >>> David Chinner <> wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
    >>>>> Sami Farin wrote:
    >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
    >>>>>> ...
    >>>>>>>> fstab was there just fine after -u.
    >>>>>>> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
    >>>>>> Looked like it =)
    >>>>> Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:
    >>>>> I guess it got lost?
    >>>> Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge?
    >>> Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there
    >>> would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held??
    >> Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect? At
    >> least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules. :)
    > I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this
    > mutex problem would simply go away.

    Well nobody's asserting that the filesystem must always be locked &
    unlocked by the same thread, are they? That'd be a strange rule to
    enforce upon the userspace doing the filesystem management wouldn't it?
    Or am I thinking about this wrong...

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-01-09 05:17    [W:0.033 / U:9.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site