From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix reiserfs lock inversion of bkl vs inode semaphore
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:51:20 -0700
Message-ID: <20060804155120.d33f53d1.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <20060804140015.GD1134@watt.suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-dev@namesys.com
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:36234 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161568AbWHDWv1 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:51:27 -0400
To: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060804140015.GD1134@watt.suse.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:00:15 -0400
Chris Mason <mason@suse.com> wrote:

> The correct lock ordering is inode lock -> BKL

hm.  With CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y we should be getting lockdep warnings and
deadlocks, shouldn't we?  I recall seeing reports of neither.