Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 12:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Running LTP with the default runfile on a 4 virtual CPU x86-64
> > > system gives
> > >
> > > To reproduce: run ltp 20040908 (newer one will probably work
> > > too) with runltp -p -q -l `uname -r` on a ext3 file system
> > >
> > > config is x86-64 defconfig.
> > >
> >
> > mutex_trylock() is returning the wrong value. fs/super.c:write_super()
> > clearly took the lock.
>
>
> the conversion is buggy.
>
> mutex_trylock has the same convention as spin_try_lock (which is the
> opposite of down_trylock). THe conversion forgot to add a !
>
> --- linux-2.6.15/fs/ext3/super.c~ 2006-01-11 21:54:13.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.15/fs/ext3/super.c 2006-01-11 21:54:13.000000000 +0100
> @@ -2150,7 +2150,7 @@
>
> static void ext3_write_super (struct super_block * sb)
> {
> - if (mutex_trylock(&sb->s_lock) != 0)
> + if (!mutex_trylock(&sb->s_lock) != 0)
> BUG();
> sb->s_dirt = 0;
> }
We expect the lock to be held on entry. Hence we expect mutex_trylock()
to return zero.
-
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]
