[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160503000600.073934128@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:12:46 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.5 167/200] f2fs: dont need to call set_page_dirty for io error
4.5-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
commit e3ef18762f5757d3fb86f75ca59315db6d17d719 upstream.
If end_io gets an error, we don't need to set the page as dirty, since we
already set f2fs_stop_checkpoint which will not flush any data.
This will resolve the following warning.
======================================================
[ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
4.4.0+ #9 Tainted: G O
------------------------------------------------------
xfs_io/26773 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
(&(&sbi->inode_lock[i])->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffc025483f>] update_dirty_page+0x6f/0xd0 [f2fs]
and this task is already holding:
(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81396ea2>] blk_queue_bio+0x422/0x490
which would create a new lock dependency:
(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.-.} -> (&(&sbi->inode_lock[i])->rlock){+.+...}
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/f2fs/data.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
@@ -67,7 +67,6 @@ static void f2fs_write_end_io(struct bio
f2fs_restore_and_release_control_page(&page);
if (unlikely(bio->bi_error)) {
- set_page_dirty(page);
set_bit(AS_EIO, &page->mapping->flags);
f2fs_stop_checkpoint(sbi);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists