[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 12:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <> 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.

Right, I can make lock_page classes per address space. Lets see if this
one goes away.

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: 2007-07-15 22:17    [W:0.071 / U:2.832 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site