* [PATCH] block_dev.c mutex_lock_nested() fix
@ 2006-08-23 15:09 Jason Baron
2006-08-23 16:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2006-08-23 18:02 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Baron @ 2006-08-23 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: neilb; +Cc: akpm, arjan, mingo, axboe, a.p.zijlstra, linux-kernel
Hi,
In the case below we are locking the whole disk not a partition. This
change simply brings the code in line with the piece above where when we
are the 'first' opener, and we are a partition.
thanks,
-Jason
Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
--- linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c.bak
+++ linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ do_open(struct block_device *bdev, struc
rescan_partitions(bdev->bd_disk, bdev);
} else {
mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex,
- BD_MUTEX_PARTITION);
+ BD_MUTEX_WHOLE);
bdev->bd_contains->bd_part_count++;
mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] block_dev.c mutex_lock_nested() fix
2006-08-23 15:09 [PATCH] block_dev.c mutex_lock_nested() fix Jason Baron
@ 2006-08-23 16:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2006-08-23 18:02 ` Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2006-08-23 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Baron; +Cc: neilb, akpm, arjan, mingo, axboe, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 11:09 -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the case below we are locking the whole disk not a partition. This
> change simply brings the code in line with the piece above where when we
> are the 'first' opener, and we are a partition.
Makes sense in that only whole devices have a partition count.
> Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> --- linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c.bak
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
> @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ do_open(struct block_device *bdev, struc
> rescan_partitions(bdev->bd_disk, bdev);
> } else {
> mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex,
> - BD_MUTEX_PARTITION);
> + BD_MUTEX_WHOLE);
> bdev->bd_contains->bd_part_count++;
> mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex);
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] block_dev.c mutex_lock_nested() fix
2006-08-23 15:09 [PATCH] block_dev.c mutex_lock_nested() fix Jason Baron
2006-08-23 16:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2006-08-23 18:02 ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-23 17:51 ` Jason Baron
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2006-08-23 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Baron; +Cc: neilb, arjan, mingo, axboe, a.p.zijlstra, linux-kernel
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:09:35 -0400 (EDT)
Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In the case below we are locking the whole disk not a partition. This
> change simply brings the code in line with the piece above where when we
> are the 'first' opener, and we are a partition.
>
> thanks,
>
> -Jason
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
>
> --- linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c.bak
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
> @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ do_open(struct block_device *bdev, struc
> rescan_partitions(bdev->bd_disk, bdev);
> } else {
> mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex,
> - BD_MUTEX_PARTITION);
> + BD_MUTEX_WHOLE);
> bdev->bd_contains->bd_part_count++;
> mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex);
> }
This was allegedly (re-re-re-re-)fixed in 2.6.18-rc4-mm2.
lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning.patch and
lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning-fix.patch.
Is this patch needed in that kernel?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] block_dev.c mutex_lock_nested() fix
2006-08-23 18:02 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2006-08-23 17:51 ` Jason Baron
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Baron @ 2006-08-23 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: neilb, arjan, mingo, axboe, a.p.zijlstra, linux-kernel
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:09:35 -0400 (EDT)
> Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In the case below we are locking the whole disk not a partition. This
> > change simply brings the code in line with the piece above where when we
> > are the 'first' opener, and we are a partition.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
> >
> > --- linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c.bak
> > +++ linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
> > @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ do_open(struct block_device *bdev, struc
> > rescan_partitions(bdev->bd_disk, bdev);
> > } else {
> > mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex,
> > - BD_MUTEX_PARTITION);
> > + BD_MUTEX_WHOLE);
> > bdev->bd_contains->bd_part_count++;
> > mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex);
> > }
>
> This was allegedly (re-re-re-re-)fixed in 2.6.18-rc4-mm2.
> lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning.patch and
> lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning-fix.patch.
>
> Is this patch needed in that kernel?
>
yes. Those patches address a similar type of issue, but not this specific
one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-23 18:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-08-23 15:09 [PATCH] block_dev.c mutex_lock_nested() fix Jason Baron
2006-08-23 16:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2006-08-23 18:02 ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-23 17:51 ` Jason Baron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox