Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 12:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established
> > locking order.
> 
> yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a 
> lock_page() against a different address_space: the blockdev mapping.
> 
> So this is OK - we'll never take truncate_mutex against the blockdev
> mapping (it doesn't have one, for a start ;))
> 
> This is similar to the quite common case where we take inode A's
> i_mutex inside inode B's i_mutex, which needs special lockdep annotations.
> 
> I think.  I haven't looked into this in detail.

Right, I can make lock_page classes per address space. Lets see if this
one goes away.

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