Re: lockdep: inconsistent lock state

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 08:27:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> This is the usual false positive that is detected - XFS takes locks in
> reclaim that it also takes in non-reclaim paths. The reclaim path
> from kswapd inverts lock ordering and so we get this report. This
> case has never been a deadlock case because an inode in reclaim
> cannot be referenced by any other path, so once again it is a
> false positive....

This should be gone in 2.6.33-rc as we now tell lockdep about resetting
the dependency graph for the iolock once entering the inode reclaim path.