From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n6AG1oIk107714 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:01:53 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B690E1B51C2A for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 05LquwRG3tDQExdS for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:02:25 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: inconsistent lock state on 2.6.30? Message-ID: <20090710160225.GA14288@infradead.org> References: <20090623170844.GA23971@infradead.org> <20090626173558.GA402@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090626173558.GA402@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Sage Weil Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com FYI all these warnings are due to the new in reclaim state tracking that was added to lockdep recently. I now have a tree fixing all these warnings including those two you see. It's all still a bit hacky, but I'll soon post a patch series to fix them all in one way or another. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs