Re: [PATCH 0/7] BKL removal follow-up

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Friday 24 December 2010, Evgeniy Dushistov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 22 November 2010 16:17:23 Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > On 2010-11-21 09:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > Yes, I'd be ok with UDF doing a "select BKL" along with a "default n"
> > > > for BKL itself.
> > > > 
> > > > I think UDF currently is the only sane reason to have BKL enabled any
> > > > more, and yes, it would probably make it easier to configure things.
> > > 
> > > UFS (which I use) also relies on BKL.
> > 
> > Would you mind running a kernel with this patch and lockdep enabled then?
> > 
> > It's quite likely that this doesn't work, but the easiest way to find
> > out is to just try it if you don't understand the code. I can't see anything
> > in the code that relies on the release-on-sleep semantics and there
> > are no obvious recursive lock_kernel() calls.
> 
> I see one without looking at code (am I missed something?). See below.

Right, that was rather obvious, thanks for taking a look!

Now that I have your attention, do you expect to be able to prepare
a proper patch for 2.6.38? I don't have any experience with this file
system, nor do I have useful ways of testing it, so that would be
appreciated. Nick already volunteered to test patches, but I guess it
would make more sense if you could do the patch.

	Arnd