On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:21:30 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Now that I look, it may be best to just revert this whole set for now. > > Linus, are you amenable to doing that? > > Sure. But I'd prefer seeing how hard it would be to fix things first. > If this was at the end of the release cycle, I'd revert it > immediately. As it is, try to see how had it is. > Fair enough. I just didn't want to hold up -rc1. I should be able to fix up the bugs within the next day or so. I've got a small stack of fixes that I'll send along soon. > The bugs I found might be as easy as just the attached (TOTALLY > UNTESTED) patch. The comment about a higher-priority process and > sched_resced() is just complete and utter crap. If somebody holds a > read lock and upgrades it to a write lock, there is absolutely *zero* > reason to let some higher-priority process get the write-lock first - > that's just simply semantically wrong bullshit. "Higher priority" does > not mean "can punch through locks". > The patch is pretty close to one that I have, so yes I think that will fix it. There is one bug in the first loop though -- "old_fl" should be set to "fl" there. I'm also happy to remove the "drop the spinlock" thing. It's bothered me for a while... > Removing the silly incorrect counts should be trivial too. There > really are not very many users, and they can just walk the list > instead. > Yes, that's a straightforward revert. > Now, if you've found other more fundamental bugs that look unfixable, > then that might mean that reverting it all is unavoidable, but.. > > Linus No, I don't think there's anything unfixable there. I did find another bug, but it's simple to fix. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
