On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 04:17:10PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > > I think this is the right way to handle the lockdep false-positive in > the current containers patches, but I'm not that familiar with lockdep > so any suggestions for a better approach are welcomed. > > > In order to avoid a false-positive lockdep warning, we lock the root > inode of a new filesystem mount prior to taking container_mutex, to > preserve the invariant that container_mutex nests inside > inode->i_mutex. In order to prevent a lockdep false positive when > locking i_mutex on a newly-created container directory inode we use > mutex_lock_nested(), with a nesting level of I_MUTEX_CHILD since the > new inode will ultimately be a child directory of the parent whose > i_mutex is nested outside of container_mutex. Hi Paul, Just tried it out, and it works for me. -- regards, Dhaval I would like to change the world but they don't give me the source code! _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
