From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260717F37 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:29:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D6E304039 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:28:41 -0400 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: splice vs execve lockdep trace. Message-ID: <20130716032841.GB1578@redhat.com> References: <20130716015305.GB30569@redhat.com> <20130716023847.GA31481@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel , Oleg Nesterov , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Ben Myers , Alexander Viro On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:25:14PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > And looking more at that, I'm actually starting to think this is an > XFS locking problem. XFS really should not call back to splice while > holding the inode lock. > > But that XFS code doesn't seem new either. Is XFS a new thing for you > to test with? I started pounding on it fairly recently and have shook out a number of bugs (now fixed) since I started, so relatively new, but on the order of 'months' now. Dave _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs