Re: [PATCH] ufs: fix deadlocks after mutex merge

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:08:35AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> Your commit message makes no sense - ufs_evict_inode() is *never* called
> with that lock held, for one thing.  I agree that "ufs: sb mutex merge +
> mutex_destroy" was been badly broken and apparently never tested, though -
> the bugs are real.
> 
> 	Please, write a saner commit message; what happens is that
> ufs_{new,free}_inode() take the damn lock themselves these days, so
> their caller shouldn't do that.

PS: after rereading your mail, I see what you meant to say, but it really
wasn't clear enough.  The crucial part is that the lock is *always* taken
by free/new, not that some of the callers take it and some do not.
--
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/