On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:21:38AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Looks like with both patches applied I still also get this eventually:
>
> =====================================
> [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> 4.6.0-rc7-next-20160509+ #1264 Not tainted
> -------------------------------------
Lockdep warnings are noise. To make them STFU try the following incremental;
I'll fold it into #work.lookups and #for-next. Note that it will do nothing
to hangs - those are completely unrelated and you need Eric's patch to deal
with them.
diff --git a/fs/nfs/unlink.c b/fs/nfs/unlink.c
index d367b06..1868246 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/unlink.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/unlink.c
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static void nfs_async_unlink_release(void *calldata)
struct dentry *dentry = data->dentry;
struct super_block *sb = dentry->d_sb;
- up_read(&NFS_I(d_inode(dentry->d_parent))->rmdir_sem);
+ up_read_non_owner(&NFS_I(d_inode(dentry->d_parent))->rmdir_sem);
d_lookup_done(dentry);
nfs_free_unlinkdata(data);
dput(dentry);
@@ -117,10 +117,10 @@ static int nfs_call_unlink(struct dentry *dentry, struct nfs_unlinkdata *data)
struct inode *dir = d_inode(dentry->d_parent);
struct dentry *alias;
- down_read(&NFS_I(dir)->rmdir_sem);
+ down_read_non_owner(&NFS_I(dir)->rmdir_sem);
alias = d_alloc_parallel(dentry->d_parent, &data->args.name, &data->wq);
if (IS_ERR(alias)) {
- up_read(&NFS_I(dir)->rmdir_sem);
+ up_read_non_owner(&NFS_I(dir)->rmdir_sem);
return 0;
}
if (!d_in_lookup(alias)) {
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static int nfs_call_unlink(struct dentry *dentry, struct nfs_unlinkdata *data)
ret = 0;
spin_unlock(&alias->d_lock);
dput(alias);
- up_read(&NFS_I(dir)->rmdir_sem);
+ up_read_non_owner(&NFS_I(dir)->rmdir_sem);
/*
* If we'd displaced old cached devname, free it. At that
* point dentry is definitely not a root, so we won't need
--
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
