| To: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 04 Jul 2006 14:42:42 +0200 |
| Cc: | Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mingo@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20060704191100.C1497438__38681.8935432986$1152004607$gmane$org@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| References: | <20060704004116.GA7612@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20060704011858.GG1605@parisc-linux.org> <20060704112503.H1495869@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20060704063225.GA2752@elte.hu> <20060704084143.GA12931@elte.hu> <20060704191100.C1497438__38681.8935432986$1152004607$gmane$org@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> writes: > > That would be good, but it doesn't work for all situations > unfortunately, and it would loose that debug-kernel sanity > checking that we have in there which validates ilock/iolock > ordering rules. Isn't that obsolete now with lockdep? -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: determining sunit, pgs |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfs: i_state of inode is changed after the inode is freed, Masayuki Saito |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | PARTIAL TAKE 954365 - fix some Makefile dependency problems, Tim Shimmin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |