On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:08:35AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Your commit message makes no sense - ufs_evict_inode() is *never* called
> with that lock held, for one thing. I agree that "ufs: sb mutex merge +
> mutex_destroy" was been badly broken and apparently never tested, though -
> the bugs are real.
>
> Please, write a saner commit message; what happens is that
> ufs_{new,free}_inode() take the damn lock themselves these days, so
> their caller shouldn't do that.
PS: after rereading your mail, I see what you meant to say, but it really
wasn't clear enough. The crucial part is that the lock is *always* taken
by free/new, not that some of the callers take it and some do not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
