[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean