[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070108191800.9d83ff5e.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:18:00 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl /
xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
> > David Chinner <dgc@....com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> Sami Farin wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>> fstab was there just fine after -u.
> >>>>> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
> >>>> Looked like it =)
> >>> Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:
> >>>
> >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137
> >>>
> >>> I guess it got lost?
> >> Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge?
> >
> > Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there
> > would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held??
>
> Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect? At
> least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules. :)
I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this
mutex problem would simply go away.
-
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