On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 10:38 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > xfs_trans_add_item() is called with ip->i_ilock held, which means it > is unsafe for memory reclaim to recurse back into the filesystem > (ilock is required in writeback). Hence the allocation needs to be > KM_NOFS to avoid recursion. Looks good. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> > Lockdep report indicating memory allocation being called with the > ip->i_ilock held is as follows: . . . _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
