On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:12:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:18:02PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > IIRC I've reported this before. Perhaps it is a false positive, but even > > so it is still annoying that it triggers and turns off lockdep for > > subsequent debugging. > > > > Any chance it can get fixed or properly annotated? > > It is supposed to be handled by the re-initialisation of the > ip->i_iolock in ->evict_inode (xfs_fs_evict_inode). An inode found > in the reclaim state must have passed through this reinitialisation, > so from a lockdep perspective the iolock in the vfs path is a > different context to the iolock in the reclaim path. That fixed all > the non-reclaim state related lockdep false positives, so Perhaps > there is an issue with the lockdep reclaim state checking that does > not interact well with re-initialised lock contexts? Hmm. I suppose that should work. So xfs_reclaim_inode can only call xfs_ilock _after_ the Linux inode has gone through ->evict_inode call? If so, then let's ask the lockdep people. Thanks, Nick _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
