[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171130221126.GA31795@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:11:26 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:38:02PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> I don't think there is a bug here. The 'wake_up_locked()' calls in epoll
> are being protected by the ep->lock, not the wait_queue_head lock. So
> arguably the 'annotation' is wrong, but I don't think there is a bug
> beyond that.
They can't be protected by ep->lock. The file might as well be
watched for using poll or select as well, or just using epoll using
another epoll fd.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists