Not only we need to avoid the warning from lockdep_sys_exit(), the
caller of freeze_super() can never release this lock. Another thread
can do this, so there is another reason for rwsem_release().
Plus the comment should explain why we have to fool lockdep.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/super.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index d0fdd49..89b58fb 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -1236,11 +1236,17 @@ static void sb_wait_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
{
s64 writers;
+ rwsem_acquire(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
/*
- * We just cycle-through lockdep here so that it does not complain
- * about returning with lock to userspace
+ * We are going to return to userspace and forget about this lock, the
+ * ownership goes to the caller of thaw_super() which does unlock.
+ *
+ * FIXME: we should do this before return from freeze_super() after we
+ * called sync_filesystem(sb) and s_op->freeze_fs(sb), and thaw_super()
+ * should re-acquire these locks before s_op->unfreeze_fs(sb). However
+ * this leads to lockdep false-positives, so currently we do the early
+ * release right after acquire.
*/
- rwsem_acquire(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
rwsem_release(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 1, _THIS_IP_);
do {
--
1.5.5.1
--
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
