Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:39:40 -0700 (PDT) | From | Yichen Xie <> | Subject | Re: [BUGS] [CHECKER] 99 synchronization bugs and a lock summary database |
| |
indeed, the code looks different in 2.6.7. definitely not a double unlock any more, but it seems the new version exit w/ client_sema unheld at line 1616, and w/ the lock held at line 1625. is there a correlation between the return value with the lock state? -yichen
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Yichen Xie <yxie@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > > http://glide.stanford.edu/linux-lock/err1.html (69 errors) > > nfsd4_open_confirm() looks to be a false positive - judging by the comment: > > /* > * nfs4_unlock_state(); called in encode > */ > > the caller of this function is supposed to do nfs4_unlock_state() later on. >
- 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/
| |