From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395AF29E00 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 18:57:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F08AC002 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [195.92.253.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id d6OoAixwP95vdnyN (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:57:17 +0100 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace. Message-ID: <20140330235717.GO18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20140329223109.GA24098@redhat.com> <20140330234335.GB16336@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140330234335.GB16336@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > filldir on a directory inode vs page fault on regular file. Known > issue, definitely a false positive. We have to change locking > algorithms to avoid such deficiencies of lockdep (a case of "lockdep > considered harmful", perhaps?) so it's not something I'm about to > rush... Give i_lock on directories a separate class, as it's been done for i_mutex... _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs