[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:0.034 / U:24.076 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site