[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700] [...snip...] | | No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock | within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already called | under inode_lock. | | It has nothing to do with lock_kernel() and it has nothing to do with | sleeping. | Andrew, the only call that could leading to subseq. inode_lock lock is mark_inode_dirty() I guess (and that is snown by Eric's dump) but as I shown you in my dbg print without SMP it's OK. So is it SMP who lead to lock? How it depends on it? (I understand that is a stupid question for you but if you have time explain me this please ;) Cyrill - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Cyrill Gorcunov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.
- Next by Date: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF
- Index(es):
 |