On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established > locking order. yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a lock_page() against a different address_space: the blockdev mapping. So this is OK - we'll never take truncate_mutex against the blockdev mapping (it doesn't have one, for a start ;)) This is similar to the quite common case where we take inode A's i_mutex inside inode B's i_mutex, which needs special lockdep annotations. I think. I haven't looked into this in detail. - 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
