David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:18:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
This introduces
tree_lock(r) -> hugetlb_lock
And we already have
hugetlb_lock -> lru_lock
So we now have tree_lock(r) -> lru_lock, which would deadlock
against lru_lock -> tree_lock(w), right?
From a quick glance it looks safe, but I'd _really_ rather not
introduce something like this.
Urg.. good point. I hadn't even thought of that consequence - I was
more worried about whether I need i_lock or i_mutex to protect my
updates to i_blocks.
Would hugetlb_lock -> tree_lock(r) be any preferable (I think that's a
possible alternative).
Yes I think that should avoid the introduction of new lock dependency.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
