On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 10:45:27AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de> writes:
> > Mostly curious: What kind of problems did you have with deadlock
> > detection? AFAICS your patch looks ok, but deadlock detections seems
> > to be functionally equivilent with or without the patch.
>
> Well, actually the following program just hangs on 2.4.0-test7pre4
> and reports EDEADLOCK after the patch is applied.
Ok. You're right. This is the real reason why deadlock detection fails:
--- locks.c.orig Tue Aug 22 22:45:06 2000
+++ locks.c Tue Aug 22 22:45:54 2000
@@ -479,3 +479,3 @@
list_for_each(btmp, &fl->fl_block) {
- struct file_lock *bfl = list_entry(tmp, struct file_lock, fl_block);
+ struct file_lock *bfl = list_entry(btmp, struct file_lock, fl_block);
if (bfl->fl_owner == blocked_owner &&
No that I know _why_ your patch fixes deadlock detection, go
ahead an try to get your original patch included.
sorry for the noise and best regards Christian
-- THAT'S ALL FOLKS! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 23 2000 - 21:00:08 EST