[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71c37cbb-03cd-134f-8b68-cf06bfa05317@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:22:58 +0530
From: Sayali Lokhande <sayalil@...eaurora.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH V2] f2fs: Avoid double lock for cp_rwsem during
checkpoint
On 4/29/2020 6:14 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:28:36AM +0530, Sayali Lokhande wrote:
>> Hi Markus
>>
>> On 4/27/2020 4:08 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>> … This results in deadlock as
>>>> iput() tries to hold cp_rwsem, which is already held at the
>>>> beginning by checkpoint->block_operations().
>>> Will another imperative wording become helpful besides the provided information
>>> for this change description?
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=6a8b55ed4056ea5559ebe4f6a4b247f627870d4c#n151
>>>
>>> Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” because of adjustments
>>> for the data synchronisation?
>> I couldn't find any past commit which suits to be added under "Fixes" here.
>> Let me know if you have any other comment.
> This looks really old. Maybe commit 399368372ed9 ("f2fs: introduce a
> new global lock scheme")?
Yes. Let me update it in Fixes tag in V3 and post it. Thanks for
pointing it.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists