From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: writeback: bad unlock balance detected in 3.5-rc1
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:28:40 -0400
Message-ID: <20120608202840.GB1704@thunk.org>
References: <E1Sd0IP-0005nh-AJ@tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com>
 <20120608150736.GF21080@quack.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120608150736.GF21080@quack.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:07:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Argh, I wonder how come I didn't hit this. Does attached patch fix the
> problem?

Just to confirm (although there was little doubt), I've built a kernel
with this patch and it fixes the lockdep complaint.

     	  	       	     	 - Ted