On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:21 +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 20-03-07 14:35:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex > > > being > > > acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from > > > con_close() there's another inversion with i_mutex which is also acquired > > > along the path for sysfs. And we can hardly get rid of it in the quota > > > code. > > > Now none of these is a real deadlock as quota should never call > > > print_warning() for sysfs (it doesn't use quota) but still it's nasty. I > > > suppose tty_mutex is above i_mutex because of those sysfs calls and it > > > seems sysfs must be called under tty_mutex because of races with > > > init_dev(). So it's not easy to get rid of that dependency either. > > > > maybe a far more serious option: Why on EARTH is the quota code going to > > TTY's directly? That's just WRONG. Maybe it wasn't 10 years ago, but > > nowadays most people use graphical user interfaces and the like... > We've been discussing this sometimes back in August ;) > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/8/237) and we've decided to leave the code in. > The only reason why I think it should stay in is the existence of quota > softlimits. There it's nice to warn the user and there's no other way to > propagate this information into userspace (as the write succeeds). > One solution would be to leave the warning to some userspace process > (like warnquota) run from cron but still I'm not sure we should change the > behavior.
or send a uevent or something -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org - 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/
