> It seems to me we can simply put the new s_umount instance in a
> different subclass. Its a bit unusual to use _nested for the outer lock,
> but lockdep doesn't particularly cares about subclass order.
>
> If there's any issue with the callers of sget() assuming the s_umount
> lock being of sublcass 0, then there is another annotation we can use to
> fix that, but lets not bother with that if this is sufficient.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
a minor comment
> + * lock of the old one. Since these are clearly distrinct
s/distrinct/distinct
BTW, I found another bug in current code:
From: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:55:53 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] vfs: add missing unlock in sget()
We should release s->s_umount before calling destroy_super(s).
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/super.c | 4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 61dce00..8bdf981 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -356,8 +356,10 @@ retry:
continue;
if (!grab_super(old))
goto retry;
- if (s)
+ if (s) {
+ up_write(&s->s_umount);
destroy_super(s);
+ }
return old;
}
}
--
1.5.4.rc3
--
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
