On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It was /proc/xen/xenbus, which doesn't exist in the upstream kernel
> (it's replacement is a miscdev at /dev/xen/xenbus there), hence I
> didn't really consider it feasible to include that additional information
> in the commit message.
Hmm. That might at least be worth mentioning. And it might explain why
we haven't seen problems with that commit 9c225f2655 even though it
goes back a few years.
Regardless, I don't object to the patch at all, I'd just like a bit
more background information. So if you can give even a fairly handwavy
overview of what the xenbus locking deadlock was, that would be great.
Thanks,
Linus
--
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
