On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 07:29:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:06:13 -0500 "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:10:57PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:05:52PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > On 11/16/10 10:38 PM, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > >> as for the locking problems ... sorry about that! > > > > > > > > > > That's no problem. So is that an ack? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to test it with the original case it was supposed to solve; will > > > > do that tomorrow. > > > > > > OK, but it shouldn't make much difference, unless there is a lot of > > > strange activity happening on the sb (like mount / umount / remount / > > > freeze / etc). > > > > This makes sense to me as well. > > > > Acked-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > > > So how do we want to send this patch to Linus? It's a writeback > > change, so through some mm tree? > > It's in my todo pile. Even though the patch sucks, but not as much as > its changelog does. Am not particularly happy merging an alleged > bugfix where the bug is, and I quote, "I saw a lock order warning on > ext4 trigger". I mean, wtf? How is anyone supposed to review the code > based on that?? Or to understand it a year from now? Sorry bout the confusion, it was supposed to be "i_mutex", and then it would have been a bit more obvious. > When I get to it I'll troll this email thread and might be able to > kludge together a description which might be able to fool people into > thinking it makes sense. "Lock order reversal between s_umount and i_mutex". i_mutex nests inside s_umount in some writeback paths (it was the end io handler to convert unwritten extents IIRC). But hmm, wouldn't that be a bug? We aren't allowed to take i_mutex inside writeback, are we? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
