xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: xfs vs. lockdep

from [Timothy Shimmin] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs vs. lockdep
From: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:55:33 +1000
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <452B0396.8060506@sandeen.net>
References: <452A8DE2.4000608@sandeen.net> <20061010004726.GO11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <C013892BDA68824F76A0474A@boing.melbourne.sgi.com> <452B0396.8060506@sandeen.net>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
--On 9 October 2006 9:21:10 PM -0500 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
This one rings a bell. I seem to recall multiple places where we destroy
without releasing the lock first.
And I vaguely remember Nathan mentioning that this was causing grief
for lockdep:)


Ok, cool. Want a formal patch 
Nope :)

or you guys want to just free it up...

         /*
          * Free all memory associated with the inode.
          */
+       xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL | XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
         xfs_idestroy(ip);

Thanks,

Thanks, I'll just check it in under Vlad's bug.

Cheers,
Tim.






[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: xfs vs. lockdep, Vlad Apostolov
Next by Date:  Re: Directories > 2GB, Christoph Hellwig
Previous by Thread:  Re: xfs vs. lockdep, Eric Sandeen
Next by Thread:  Re: xfs vs. lockdep, Eric Sandeen
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]