Hey Neil; it looks like its one of your patches isn't it? http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg44100.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg44101.html Given that I can't find them in a lkml archive means nobody's ever seen those patches. Anyway; has that 3/3 patch ever been ran with lockdep enabled? Stuff like: + for (i = 0; i < NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i++) + spin_lock_init(conf->hash_locks + i); And: +static void __lock_all_hash_locks(struct r5conf *conf) +{ + int i; + for (i = 0; i < NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS; i++) + spin_lock(conf->hash_locks + i); +} Tends to complain real loud. This leaves one to wonder... 'fancy' locking scheme:1, validation effort:0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
