Re: [CHECKER] a couple potential deadlocks in 2.4.5-ac8

Alexander Viro
2001-06-09T19:36:53Z

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Anyway, in a 2.5.x timeframe we should probably make sure that we do not
> have the need for a recursive BKL any more. That shouldn't be that hard to
> fix, especially with help from CHECKER to verify that we didn't forget
> some case.

True, but... I can easily see the situation when ->foo() and ->bar()
both call a helper function which needs BKL for a small piece of code.
->foo() callers take BKL (and it's choke-full of places that still need
BKL, anyway). ->bar() is called without BKL. Moreover, grabbing BKL
over the whole helper is a massive overkill.

ObUnrelated: fs/super.c is getting to the point where it naturally
falls into two files - one that deals with mount cache and all things
vfsmount-related, mount tree manipulations, etc. and another that deals
with superblocks. Mind if I split the thing?