On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:12:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > 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? I've been looking through this again, and I think it's indeed not enough. We don't just need to re-initialize it, but also set a different lockclass for it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
