[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
| No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
| within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already called
| under inode_lock.
| It has nothing to do with lock_kernel() and it has nothing to do with
| sleeping.

Andrew, the only call that could leading to subseq. inode_lock lock
is mark_inode_dirty() I guess (and that is snown by Eric's dump)
but as I shown you in my dbg print without SMP it's OK. So
is it SMP who lead to lock? How it depends on it? (I understand
that is a stupid question for you but if you have time explain
me this please ;)


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: 2007-06-02 22:05    [W:0.078 / U:59.840 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site