| To: | "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: possible recursive locking detected |
| From: | "Christian Kujau" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:46:24 +0100 (BST) |
| Cc: | "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070423211952.GA13572@infradead.org> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704021914060.3963@sheep.housecafe.de> <20603.194.246.123.250.1177344480.squirrel@derchris.gotdns.org:8080> <462D0D23.7010803@sandeen.net> <20070423211952.GA13572@infradead.org> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | SquirrelMail/1.5.2 [SVN] |
On Mon, April 23, 2007 22:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It's not really cosmetic. It means i_lock and i_iolock are beeing > acquired without an order that is detectable by lockdep. At the very first > it means annotations for lockdep are missing, because acquiring two > per-inode locks at the same time is a basic fact in unix filesystems. Thank you both for your comments, now I can sleep better again ;) Christian. -- BOFH excuse #442: Trojan horse ran out of hay |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Fix "quota -n" command in xfs_quota., Utako Kusaka |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: review [1 of 3]: lazy superblock counters - core kernel, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: possible recursive locking detected, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs partial dismount issue, Charles Weber |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |