[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17706.1827.174148.860144@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:24:03 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, steved@...hat.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: annotate nfs/nfsd in-kernel sockets
On Monday October 9, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 11:00 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Friday October 6, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl wrote:
> > >
> > > Stick NFS sockets in their own class to avoid some lockdep warnings.
> > > NFS sockets are never exposed to user-space, and will hence not trigger
> > > certain code paths that would otherwise pose deadlock scenarios.
> >
> > I'm a bit bothered that the changelog entry does mention what sort of
> > lockdep warning are begin avoided,
>
> These:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/13/84
Wouldn't have hurt to have that link in the changelog... or maybe an
excerpt?
That is very much an nfs-client issue, so reclassifying the
server-side sockets seems irrelevant. Doesn't cause any harm though I
suppose.
>
> > and that 'svc_reclassify_socket'
> > doesn't contain the work 'lock', yet is it really the locks that are
> > being reclassified.
>
> Hmm, good point, shall I do s/reclassify_socket/reclassify_sock_lock/ ?
>
If you want to keep that function, then yes.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists