| To: | Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock() |
| From: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Jan 2007 07:41:13 +0100 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20070108155636.a68dce33.akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20070104001420.GA32440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070107213734.GS44411608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070108155636.a68dce33.akpm@xxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Revert bd_mount_mutex back to a semaphore so that xfs_freeze -f
> > /mnt/newtest; xfs_freeze -u /mnt/newtest works safely and doesn't
> > produce lockdep warnings.
>
> Sad. The alternative would be to implement
> mutex_unlock_dont_warn_if_a_different_task_did_it(). Ingo? Possible?
i'd like to avoid it as much as i'd like to avoid having to add
spin_unlock_dont_warn_if_a_different_task_did_it(). Unlocking by a
different task is usually a sign of messy locking and bugs lurking. Is
it really true that XFS's use of bd_mount_mutex is safe and justified?
Ingo
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS and 2.6.18 -> 2.6.20-rc3, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()), Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock(), Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: BUG: warning at mm/truncate.c:60/cancel_dirty_page(), David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |