[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a44ae5cd0704261021n78780c71i4c8f7613d58dec54@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:21:43 -0700
From: "Miles Lane" <miles.lane@...il.com>
To: "Tejun Heo" <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: use different lockdep subclass for s_active deactivation
On 4/26/07, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
> A sysfs node can delete other sysfs files when accessed. This results
> in recursive s_active locking - read lock for file access, down lock
> of the vicitim for deactivation. Tell lockdep that it's okay.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
> ---
> Miles, please test this patch. It should remove the lockdep warning.
> Fixes for the other two problems will soon follow.
>
> Greg, Andrew, after all the fixes are verified, I'll merge the fixes
> into the original patches and resend all the sysfs updates in better
> shape. Sorry about all the trouble.
Should I test this with 2.6.21-rc7-mm2?
It doesn't apply cleanly.
# patch -p1 -l --dry-run < tejun.patch
patching file fs/sysfs/dir.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 31 with fuzz 1 (offset -29 lines).
patching file fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
Hunk #1 succeeded at 40 (offset -1 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 182 with fuzz 1 (offset -1 lines).
-
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