On 09/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Hello, > > The patches do not depend on each other. Yes, > 1/2 is the trivial fix, imo -stable material. The bug is very old it seems, > but today this race (leading to unbalanced unlock) manifests itself via > mysterious BUG_ON's in rcu/sync.c. Yes. Al, could you take it? Or how else we should route it? > 2/2 is old, I forgot to send it before. It was already reviewed by Dave and Jan, > but the generic/068 test from xfstests triggered the warning. This was fixed by > dbad7c993053 "xfs: stop holding ILOCK over filldir callbacks" so we can hopefully > kill the early-lockdep-release kludge. Lets ignore it for now, it does lead to false-positives. Thanks again Jan and Dave for your help. 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
