On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Lockdep warns about a inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} ->
> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. The culpritt is the inode->i_mutex taken in
> nfs_file_direct_write(). This code was introduced by commit a9ab5e840669
> ("nfs: page cache invalidation for dio").
> This naive test patch avoid to take the mutex on a swapfile and makes
> lockdep happy again. However I don't know much about NFS code and I
> assume it's probably not the proper solution. Any thought?
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
NFS is not the only O_DIRECT implementation to set the inode->i_mutex.
Why can't this be fixed in the generic swap code instead of adding
yet-another-exception-for-IS_SWAPFILE?
Cheers
Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
