From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:19:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.osdl.org (smtp.osdl.org [65.172.181.24]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l093Isqw032012 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:18:55 -0800 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:18:00 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()) Message-Id: <20070108191800.9d83ff5e.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <45A30828.6000508@sandeen.net> References: <20070104001420.GA32440@m.safari.iki.fi> <20070107213734.GS44411608@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070108110323.GA3803@m.safari.iki.fi> <45A27416.8030600@sandeen.net> <20070108234728.GC33919298@melbourne.sgi.com> <20070108161917.73a4c2c6.akpm@osdl.org> <45A30828.6000508@sandeen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: David Chinner , linux-kernel Mailing List , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 > > David Chinner wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> Sami Farin wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>>>> fstab was there just fine after -u. > >>>>> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed? > >>>> Looked like it =) > >>> Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago: > >>> > >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137 > >>> > >>> I guess it got lost? > >> Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge? > > > > Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there > > would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held?? > > Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect? At > least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules. :) I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this mutex problem would simply go away.