| To: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:26:52 +1000 |
| Cc: | Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20060704130338.GA4354@elte.hu>; from mingo@elte.hu on Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:03:38PM +0200 |
| 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@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20060704095743.GA21480@elte.hu> <20060704130338.GA4354@elte.hu> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:03:38PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > so i suspect: > > fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h:#define AIL_LOCK_DESTROY(x) spinlock_destroy(x) > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/spin.h:#define spinlock_destroy(lock) > > needs to change and we need to implement spinlock_destroy(), a'ka > mutex_destroy()? [which i added recently too] Hmm, don't think so - only if you needed to change all other spinlock uses in the kernel to have a teardown too? Can't see that in current git trees, anyway, so I expect that to be OK as is. cheers. -- Nathan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected, Arjan van de Ven |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected, Ingo Molnar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected, Ingo Molnar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |