Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!

[Mandeep Singh Baines]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:49:54AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:46:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > So, I think this is why implementing freezer as a separate blocking
>> > mechanism isn't such a good idea.  We're effectively introducing a
>> > completely new waiting state to a lot of unsuspecting paths which
>> > generates a lot of risks and eventually extra complexity to work
>> > around those.  I think we really should update freezer to re-use the
>> > blocking points we already have - the ones used for signal delivery
>> > and ptracing.  That way, other code paths don't have to worry about an
>> > extra stop state and we can confine most complexities to freezer
>> > proper.
>>
>> Also, consolidating those wait states means that we can solve the
>> event-to-response latency problem for all three cases - signal, ptrace
>> and freezer, rather than adding separate backing-out strategy for
>> freezer.
>
> Meanwhile, as none of this sounds likely to be done this time
> around--are we backing out the new lockdep warnings?
>
> --b.

What if we hide it behind a Kconfig? Its finding real bugs.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/5/583
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/