[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110518100451.GV20624@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 12:04:51 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/3 v2.6.39-rc7] block: make disk_block_events()
properly wait for work cancellation
Hello,
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 02:46:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Quite frankly. right now I think I need to just release 2.6.39, and
> then for 2.6.40 merge the trivial
>
> mutex_lock(&ev->mutex);
> if (!ev->block++)
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ev->dwork);
> mutex_unlock(&ev->mutex);
>
> with a cc: stable for backporting.
This isn't super-critical and releasing without the fix but later
backporting via -stable definitely is an option.
> So we can't be in some atomic context inside some other spinlock
> anyway, afaik. And there can be no lock order issues, since this
> would always be a new inner lock.
Yeap, the problem was unblock/check being allowed to be called without
sleeping context, which isn't used anymore and was broken due to
cancellation race. We can just enclose the whole thing inside per-ev
mutex and everything should be simple and fine. I'll post patches
soon.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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