From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - fix get_next_positive_subdir()
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:53:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwCESHx0d+ZEe-zi3PS6mkMaMng75Dnfit93cTwhb5gSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120523024950.3905.89811.stgit@perseus.themaw.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	autofs mailing list <autofs@linux.kernel.org>
To: Ian Kent <ikent@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120523024950.3905.89811.stgit@perseus.themaw.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kent <ikent@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The locking for the list traversal in get_next_positive_subdir() is
> wrong, so fix it.

As an explanation, this kind of thing is totally useless. It doesn't
actually give any information at all. It's like saying "change
locking"

What happened, and why? Why is the new nested spinlock ok and won't
deadlock against other nested users? Wazzup?

                 Linus