On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 21:29 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > In that case though, it would suggest the inode got re-used instead of > > destroyed and re-created using xfs_alloc_inode(), is that at all > > possible? > > Yes, actually it is - see the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE case in > xfs_iget_cache_hit(). I guess we haven't seen the original lock > inversion false positives that this was supposed to fix because the > reclaim warnings trip first... > > I think that means we also need to reinitialise the lock when we recycle > the inode out of the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state. Right, in which case you probably want an explicit lock class and use that one class in both xfs_alloc_inode() and the reclaim case. See my earlier suggestion wrt lockdep_set_class*() on how to do that. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
