xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected

To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:58:24 +1000
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20060705064651.GA28084@xxxxxxx>; from mingo@xxxxxxx on Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:46:51AM +0200
References: <20060704004116.GA7612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060704011858.GG1605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060704112503.H1495869@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060704063225.GA2752@xxxxxxx> <20060704084143.GA12931@xxxxxxx> <20060704191100.C1497438@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060704095743.GA21480@xxxxxxx> <20060704130338.GA4354@xxxxxxx> <20060705152652.F1521039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060705064651.GA28084@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:46:51AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i should have formulated this as a question: should i implement 
> spin_lock_destroy()? A few months ago i implemented mutex_destroy() for 
> XFS's use, and now we could do it for spinlocks too.
> ...
> spin_lock_destroy() would work like mutex_destroy(): the magic number in 
> the lock is overwritten and hence no further locking API will allow the 
> use of that lock from that point on. (up until the lock is reinitialized 
> via spin_lock_init())

Oh, right, I see - yes, I think that could be generally useful
and we'd get some value out of that in XFS for sure.  Thanks.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>