Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 May 2007 12:46:15 -0500 | From | Eric Sandeen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF |
| |
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Eric, could you please try the following: > > 1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as > > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock); > > 2) replace in udf_drop_inode() > > kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock); > kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock); > > I'm not sure if it help but you may try ;) > > Cyrill >
I'm sure it'll avoid the deadlock but....
Any sense of what the BKL is actually trying to protect in this case?
Is it really only trying to prevent concurrent prealloc-discarders, or is there more?
-Eric - 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/
| |