| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace. |
| From: | Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:57:17 +0100 |
| Cc: | Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20140330234335.GB16336@dastard> |
| References: | <20140329223109.GA24098@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140330234335.GB16336@dastard> |
| Sender: | Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > filldir on a directory inode vs page fault on regular file. Known > issue, definitely a false positive. We have to change locking > algorithms to avoid such deficiencies of lockdep (a case of "lockdep > considered harmful", perhaps?) so it's not something I'm about to > rush... Give i_lock on directories a separate class, as it's been done for i_mutex... |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs help question, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix bad hash ordering, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace., Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace., Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |