Dave, I am sorry for delay. On 10/10, Dave Chinner wrote: > > So, it's time to waste more time explaining why lockdep is telling > us about something that *isn't a bug*. > [... snip ...] OK, thanks. I am not surprised although I have to admit I wasn't sure. > Basically, what we are seeing here is yet another case of "lockdep > is just smart enough to be really dumb" because we cannot fully > express or cleanly annotate the contexts in which it is being asked > to validate. Yes... perhaps we can add the new lockdep helpers to avoid the false- positives like this one, but so far it is not clear to me what we can do. Somehow we need to tell it to to avoid check_prev_add() because we know that the work function won't take sb_internal, but at the same time we should complain if it actually does this. Lets ignore this patch for now. Oleg. -- 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
