From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Becker Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:57:53 -0800 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix __ocfs2_cluster_lock() dead lock In-Reply-To: <20100113032049.GA4045@laptop.oracle.com> References: <201001060835.o067n0EO000623@rcsinet13.oracle.com> <20100107020005.GC20095@mail.oracle.com> <20100109180521.GA5148@laptop.oracle.com> <20100112015946.GE20285@mail.oracle.com> <20100113032049.GA4045@laptop.oracle.com> Message-ID: <20100113075752.GA23372@mail.oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:20:49AM +0800, Wengang Wang wrote: > before update_holders, the lock could be DCed(since no BUSY flag set by > here). > > and even after update_holders, the lock could be DCed too. > > so that we get ocfs2_cluster_lock()(with holders increased) returned sucessfully > but actually we don't hold the dlm lock. --thus more than one node is > considering that they have the (EX) lock. You make a good point. I don't like the solution you propose, though. Another flag that's almost the same? Eww! There's got to be a better way. Joel -- Life's Little Instruction Book #80 "Slow dance" Joel Becker Principal Software Developer Oracle E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127