[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CD235E.7030404@lwfinger.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:05:02 -0500
From: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Possible IRQ lock inversion from 2.6.29-Linus-03321-gbe0ea69
(2.6.29-git)
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> We could do that. When I made the change I'd verified that there were
> no users in IRQ context, and I couldn't really see why there should
> be. I'd rather avoid adding all those IRQ disables if I can avoid it.
>
> How about, instead, just reversing the order of lock acquisition in
> fasync_helper()? That would increase the hold time for f_lock, but I
> have a hard time seeing that being a real problem. I'm running with
> the following now; all seems well. I'll send it up in a bit if nobody
> gripes.
The patch gets rid of the warning for me.
Larry
--
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