Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.

[J. R. Okajima]

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
--
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/