On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:27:32 +0200
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>
> workaround for special sb->s_umount locking rule.
>
> s_umount gets held across a series of lock dropping and releasing
> in prune_one_dentry(), so i changed the order, at the risk of
> introducing a umount race. FIXME.
>
> i think a better fix would be to do the unlocks as _non_nested in
> prune_one_dentry(), and to do the up_read() here as
> an up_read_non_nested() as well?
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/dcache.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux/fs/dcache.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/fs/dcache.c
> +++ linux/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -470,8 +470,9 @@ static void prune_dcache(int count, stru
> s_umount = &dentry->d_sb->s_umount;
> if (down_read_trylock(s_umount)) {
> if (dentry->d_sb->s_root != NULL) {
> - prune_one_dentry(dentry);
> +// lockdep hack: do this better!
> up_read(s_umount);
> + prune_one_dentry(dentry);
> continue;
argh, you broke my kernel!
I'll whack some ifdefs in here so it's only known-broken if CONFIG_LOCKDEP.
Again, we'd need the real fix here.
-
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]
