Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:59:21 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode |
| |
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established > locking order.
yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a lock_page() against a different address_space: the blockdev mapping.
So this is OK - we'll never take truncate_mutex against the blockdev mapping (it doesn't have one, for a start ;))
This is similar to the quite common case where we take inode A's i_mutex inside inode B's i_mutex, which needs special lockdep annotations.
I think. I haven't looked into this in detail. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |