[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17708.46919.675664.178234@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:20:07 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 4] Introduction
On Wednesday October 11, mingo@...e.hu wrote:
> >
> > I say "normally" because if a loop were created in the array->member
> > hierarchy a deadlock could happen. However that causes bigger
> > problems than a deadlock and should be fixed independently.
>
> ok to me. Sidenote: shouldnt we algorithmically forbid that "loop"
> scenario from occuring, as that possibility is what causes lockdep to
> complain about the worst-case scenario?
Yes we should. Possibly we could use the linkage information set up
by bd_claim_by_kobject. However I'm afraid that the locking required
to check that linkage safely will look very dead-lock prone to
lockdep. I suspect that can be worked-around though.
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