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())

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
> David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > Sami Farin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > > fstab was there just fine after -u.
> > > > > Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
> > > > Looked like it =)
> > > Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:
> > >
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137
> > >
> > > I guess it got lost?
> > Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge?
>
> Seems not.  I think people were hoping that various nasties in there
> would go away.  We return to userspace with a kernel lock held??

Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect?  At 
least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules.  :)

-Eric