From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: [PATCH 3.14 031/130] dcache: add missing lockdep annotation To: Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds Message-Id: <20160301234500.863568890@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20160301234459.768886030@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20160301234459.768886030@linuxfoundation.org> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:50:59 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Linus Torvalds commit 9f12600fe425bc28f0ccba034a77783c09c15af4 upstream. lock_parent() very much on purpose does nested locking of dentries, and is careful to maintain the right order (lock parent first). But because it didn't annotate the nested locking order, lockdep thought it might be a deadlock on d_lock, and complained. Add the proper annotation for the inner locking of the child dentry to make lockdep happy. Introduced by commit 046b961b45f9 ("shrink_dentry_list(): take parent's ->d_lock earlier"). Reported-and-tested-by: Josh Boyer Cc: Al Viro Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/dcache.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/fs/dcache.c +++ b/fs/dcache.c @@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ again: } rcu_read_unlock(); if (parent != dentry) - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock); + spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED); else parent = NULL; return parent;