[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.

Al Viro:
> Sigh... That patch is correct, but it has nothing to do with the locking
> order violation that really *is* there. The only benefit would be to
> get rid of the "deadlock is not possible" nonsense, since you would see
> read/write vs. mmap instead of readdir vs. mmap in the traces. Locking

How do you think about this patch?

Re: [RFC 0/2] locking order of mm->mmap_sem and various FS

Ah, I found mutex_destroy() call in hugetlbfs_destroy_inode() should be
If you think this approach is good, then I'd post a revised patch.

J. R. Okajima

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-17 07:49    [W:0.089 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site