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())

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> wrote:

Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
David Chinner <[email protected]> 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. :)

I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this
mutex problem would simply go away.


Well nobody's asserting that the filesystem must always be locked & unlocked by the same thread, are they? That'd be a strange rule to enforce upon the userspace doing the filesystem management wouldn't it? Or am I thinking about this wrong...

-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux