On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:40:32PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 03/30/2014 08:40 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:57:17AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > >> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>> > > filldir on a directory inode vs page fault on regular file. Known > >>> > > issue, definitely a false positive. We have to change locking > >>> > > algorithms to avoid such deficiencies of lockdep (a case of "lockdep > >>> > > considered harmful", perhaps?) so it's not something I'm about to > >>> > > rush... > >> > > >> > Give i_lock on directories a separate class, as it's been done for i_mutex... > > Already done that. Commit: > > > > 93a8614 xfs: fix directory inode iolock lockdep false positive > > Hi Dave, > > The commit above introduces a new lockdep issue for me: Right, it's fixed one class of false positive which uncovers the next class of false positive. lockdep gives me the shits at times because every time we make some obviously correct locking change to the XFS inodes we then spend the next 3-4 kernel releases chasing down and annotating locks so that lockdep doesn't throw false positives everywhere. It's on my queue of things to fix but, quite frankly, lockdep false positives are low priority to fix right now. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
