Messages in this thread | | | From | "J. R. Okajima" <> | Subject | Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited. | Date | Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:47:41 +0900 |
| |
Al Viro: > Sigh... That patch is correct, but it has nothing to do with the locking > order violation that really *is* there. The only benefit would be to > get rid of the "deadlock is not possible" nonsense, since you would see > read/write vs. mmap instead of readdir vs. mmap in the traces. Locking :::
How do you think about this patch?
Re: [RFC 0/2] locking order of mm->mmap_sem and various FS http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132124846728745&w=2
Ah, I found mutex_destroy() call in hugetlbfs_destroy_inode() should be removed. If you think this approach is good, then I'd post a revised patch.
J. R. Okajima
| |