Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected

[Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 07:18:58PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 04:41:16AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > 2.6.17-912b2539e1e062cec73e2e61448e507f7719bd08
> > 
> > While trying to remove 2 small files, 2 empty dirs and 1 empty dir on
> > xfs partition
> 
> Probably spurious.  xfs_ilock can be called on both the parent and child,
> which wouldn't be a deadlock.

Hmm... they'd be different inodes though, so different lock addresses
in memory - is lockdep taking that into account?  Would we need to go
annotate xfs_ilock somehow to give better hints to the lockdep code?

thanks.

-- 
Nathan