On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 at 12:14, Dave Chinner wrote: > > OK, so the "possible irq lock inversion dependency detected" is a lockdep > > regression, as you explained in the xfs-list thread. What about the > > "RECLAIM_FS-safe -> RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock order detected" warning - I > > haven't seen it again though, only once with 3.14.0-rc2. > > That was also an i_lock/mmapsem issue, so it's likely to be the same > root cause. I'm testing a fix for it at the moment. Understood. Thanks for looking into this. Christian. -- BOFH excuse #129: The ring needs another token _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
