On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 08:00:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I tested Dave's patch and the bug can still be easily reproduced. > > > > And that's to be expected, as the intermediate "being on the lru" > > state that Dave's patch eliminates doesn't play a fundamental part in > > the mechanism of the livelock. ?It does eliminate one trylock, but > > that's not the one critical to this bug (removing it is a very good > > idea anyway). > > > > The critical trylock here is the one in dentry_kill() which tries to > > lock the parent. > > Ok. Here's your patch munged for current -git. You've got most of a > changelog, can you send this out with the right subject and a > sign-off, and re-test with the current git just to make sure. > > Al, do you want to handle this or should I take it directly? I'll pick it once Miklos posts it. > I'm assuming nobody has any objections to Miklos' patch? I'm fine with it. ObGrrr: I'm down to two remaining d_alloc_root() callers and while neither is buggy per se, looking around a bit has turned up breakage in both cases ;-/ (coda lookup treating OOM in new_inode() as "not found" rather than -ENOMEM and hfs+ mount not bothering to check if allocation *or* disk IO might fail, with very ugly results)... -- 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
