On 07/22/2009 08:53 AM, Li Zefan wrote: >>>> Seems reasonable to me. You might also want to mention that elsewhere >>>> the sequence is unlock cgroup_mutex followed by inode->i_mutex. >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Balbir Singh balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> >>> No, the unlock order is irrelevant. It's the lock order that matters. So >>> this patch >>> fixes nothing. >>> >>> Xiaotian, you didn't run into deadlock, did you? >>> >>> >> Li, Consider the following >> >> >> lock(A) >> lock(B) >> unlock(A) >> unlock(B) >> >> Tomorrow if a unsuspecting programmer does this >> >> lock(A) >> lock(B) >> unlock(A) >> >> code block >> >> unlock(B) >> >> >> What protects code block? lock B? Is that the intention? >> >> > > I won't worry about that. If unlock order is a concern, > we should have taught lockdep to detect it. > > Here's a reply from Linus on this issue: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/8/150 > OK, this patch is trivial. Just for consistency with previous unlock sequence:-) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
