From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: JFFS2 deadlock with alloc_sem From: David Woodhouse To: Dave Kleikamp In-Reply-To: <1181330764.10571.34.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> References: <1181330764.10571.34.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:14:19 +0100 Message-Id: <1181564059.2801.93.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nathan.Roberts@motorola.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:26 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > Forgive me for not following up properly, but I'm not on the mailing > list, and I'm following up from the archives. Hm, sorry about that. The archives should be fixed (again) now -- if you use the mailto: link at the top of an archived mail such as the one at http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2007-June/018477.html your response should have a correct In-Reply-To: header and be part of the thread. > What do you think of this patch, and does it have any affect on > Nathan's deadlock? It looks sensible. Nathan? > Note: If this works out, jffs2_readpage and jffs2_do_readpage_unlock > can probably be collapsed into one function. Yeah. And the ordering of f->sem vs. page locking should be documented in README.Locking, now that we actually have rules for it :) -- dwmw2