[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120607014247.GC17566@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:42:47 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:31:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:29:00AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 09:19:15PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:42:35PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > > So Al meant you to test mutex_is_locked(dentry->d_inode->i_mutex) of
> > > > the parents.
> > >
> > > ok, I ended up with..
> > >
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!mutex_is_locked(&target->d_parent->d_inode->i_mutex));
> > >
> > > if (dentry->d_parent != NULL)
> > != dentry)
> >
> > ->d_parent *never* should be NULL; when dentry is disconnected from the
> > tree (or hadn't been connected to it yet), it points to that dentry itself.
>
> And you want to check i_mutex on old parent, not the file being moved
> itself. IOW, the second one should be
>
> if (dentry->d_parent != dentry)
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!mutex_is_locked(&dentry->d_parent->d_inode->i_mutex));
ok, now that you've both found one per in every line I've written tonight,
things seem to have booted without incident. I'll rerun the tests, and get
back to you if/when they start spewing anything interesting.
Dave
--
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