On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:47:38AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > So this is a false positive introduced by > > 1eaa566d368b: jbd2: track more dependencies on transaction commit > > Instead of working around the problem here, perhaps it would be better > to fix __jbd2_journal_force_commit() so that it calls a newly created > __jbd2_log_wait_commit() which skips the jbd2_might_wait_for_commit() > (and then have jbd2_log_wait_commit call __jbd2_log_wait_commit with > the might_wait_for_commit check)? > > This isn't the only place where jbd2_journal_force_commit() is called > so if the problem is with the lockdep check, maybe we should just fix > the logic in the jbd2 layer, hmm? > > - Ted The lockdep warning still seems helpful because it will show places that try to force-commit the journal while holding an open handle. Callers probably won't expect that this will be a no-op, and it may indicate that the attempt to force-commit the journal is in the wrong place, as it was here. You and Jan know more about this than I do, though; I could be wrong. Eric -- 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
