Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > i'd really suggest to clean this up and to convert:
> > 	xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > to:
> > 	down_write(&ip->i_lock);
> > and:
> > 	xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> > to:
> > 	up_write(&ip->i_lock);
> > and eliminate all those layers of indirection.
> 
> That would be good, but it doesn't work for all situations 
> unfortunately, and it would loose that debug-kernel sanity checking 
> that we have in there which validates ilock/iolock ordering rules.

do you have anything in there that spinlock/mutex debugging or lockdep 
does not catch? If yes then i'll add it to the generic lock debugging 
code.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux