Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:30:42 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.16-rc5-mm1 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >>Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>>Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: BUG: warning at >>>>>>/usr/src/linux-mm/fs/inotify.c:533/inotify_d_instantiate() >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [show_trace+13/15] show_trace+0xd/0xf >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [dump_stack+21/23] dump_stack+0x15/0x17 >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [inotify_d_instantiate+47/98] >>>>>>inotify_d_instantiate+0x2f/0x62 >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [d_instantiate+70/114] >>>>>>d_instantiate+0x46/0x72 >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [ext3_add_nondir+44/64] >>>>>>ext3_add_nondir+0x2c/0x40 >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [ext3_link+163/217] ext3_link+0xa3/0xd9 >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [vfs_link+292/379] vfs_link+0x124/0x17b >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [sys_linkat+157/218] sys_linkat+0x9d/0xda >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [sys_link+20/25] sys_link+0x14/0x19 >>>>>>Feb 28 15:13:42 ltg01-sid kernel: [syscall_call+7/11] syscall_call+0x7/0xb >>>>>> >>>>>>Here is dmesg http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/mm/2.6.16-rc5-mm1/mm-dmesg >>>>>>Here is config http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/mm/2.6.16-rc5-mm1/mm-config >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This patch is causing that warning >>>>>inotify-lock-avoidance-with-parent-watch-status-in-dentry.patch >>>>> >>>> >>>>The warning is harmless really. I guess it can be removed. >>> >>> >>>? How did DCACHE_INOTIFY_PARENT_WATCHED get set on that dentry? >>> >> >>I guess it is because I don't clear it on +ve => -ve conversions. >>We _could_ do that AFAIKS, by hooking into d_delete, but it would >>have to be yet another fsnotify hook there because it will have to >>be done under lock. >> > > > How could a -ve dentry become the source of a link? We should be sure we > know why this happened before ignoring it.. >
The source of a link? That wouldn't get d_instantiate called on it, would it? I figured this was the destination.
I can reproduce a similar looking oops by unlinking a PARENT_WATCHED file, then touching it again.
-- 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 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/
| |