On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 08:53:19AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:26:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > lock(new_inode#2->i_sem) > > > > > > > > > > lock(dir->i_xattr_sem) > > > > > lock(new_inode#1->i_sem) > > > > > > > > > > This looks fine to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on your feedback, am I correct assuming that you don't plan > > > > to fix this ? > > > > > > I'm quite open to something that I may miss. Chao, what do you think? > > > > Jaegeuk, I agree with you, it looks like a false alarm. > > > > False positive lockdep reports still need to be eliminated, for example by > fixing the lockdep annotations. Otherwise it's impossible to distinguish them > from true positives. >
Exactly, and that is why I don't test features with known lockdep annotation issues. I'll drop f2fs from my list of features to test for the time being. Guenter _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
