Re: [f2fs-dev] circular locking dependency warning in f2fs

[Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>]

On 2023/8/19 1:28, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Chao,
> 
> Do you have some bandwidth to address this? Otherwise, I'll do some.

Jaegeuk, it seems I'm late... anyway, the fix looks good to me.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 6:15 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 08:53:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:26:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>                                                      lock(new_inode#2->i_sem)
>>>>>>>                                                      lock(dir->i_xattr_sem)
>>>>>>> lock(new_inode#1->i_sem)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks fine to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on your feedback, am I correct assuming that you don't plan
>>>>>> to fix this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite open to something that I may miss. Chao, what do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Jaegeuk, I agree with you, it looks like a false alarm.
>>>>
>>>
>>> False positive lockdep reports still need to be eliminated, for example by
>>> fixing the lockdep annotations.  Otherwise it's impossible to distinguish them
>>> from true positives.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, and that is why I don't test features with known lockdep annotation
>> issues. I'll drop f2fs from my list of features to test for the time being.
>>
>> Guenter


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel