On 12/14/2015 01:39 PM, Gang He wrote: > Hello Junxiao, > > From the initial description, the second lock_XYZ(PR) should be blocked, > since DLM have a fair queue mechanism, otherwise, it looks to bring a write > lock starvation. Should be blocked? No, that is a deadlock. I don't think this recursive locking is common, so no need care starvation here.
> Second, this issue can be reproduced in old Linux kernels (e.g. 3.16.7-24)? > there should not be any regression issue? Maybe just hard to reproduce, ocfs2 supports recursive locking. > Finally, really do not like nested using lock, can we avoid this. I didn't see a good reason why this should be avoided. Without this, developer needs pay more attend to not involve recursive locking, usually that is very hard before run a full test or a very detailed review. Thanks, Junxiao. > > Thanks > Gang > > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
