On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 > > David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> Sami Farin wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>>>> fstab was there just fine after -u. > >>>>> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed? > >>>> Looked like it =) > >>> Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago: > >>> > >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137 > >>> > >>> I guess it got lost? > >> Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge? > > > > Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there > > would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held?? > > Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect? At > least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules. :) I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this mutex problem would simply go away. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/