> Patch below should fix this (untested).
Just tested 2.6.22-rc6: message is gone when patch is applied. But
deleting some directories in /var/tmp (which lives on xfs) I got:
BUG: MAX_LOCK_DEPTH too low!
turning off the locking correctness validator.
Thomas
--
keep mailinglists in english,
Patch looks good, Dave.
(though, I stuffed up reviewing that bit of code previously:-)
Oh, previous typo: s/inodes at the some time/inodes at the same time/
--Tim
David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote:
Patch looks good, Dave.
(though, I stuffed up reviewing that bit of code previously:-)
Oh, previous typo: s/inodes at the some time/inodes at the same time/
--Tim
David Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote:
Patch below should fix this (untested).
Just tested 2.6.22-rc6: message is gone when patch is applied. But
deleting some directories in /var/tmp (which lives on xfs) I got:
BUG: MAX_LOCK_DEPTH too low!
turning off the locking correctness validator.
Thomas
--
keep mailinglists in english,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote:
> > It does both - parent-first/child-second and ascending inode # order,
> > which is where the problem is. standing alone, these seem fine, but
> > they don't appear to work when the
On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:01:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> [ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode
>>> number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order
On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:01:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode
number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that
rest of
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote:
It does both - parent-first/child-second and ascending inode # order,
which is where the problem is. standing alone, these seem fine, but
they don't appear to work when the child has a
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:01:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode
> > number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that
> > rest of the fs/ code does, so that
* Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode
> number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that
> rest of the fs/ code does, so that makes it difficult to teach lockdep
> about this kind of lock ordering
On 6/25/07, Johannes Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
this is what just hit the ring buffer when I was surfing with elinks on a
brand-new -rc6.
Johannes:
This is a known bogus warning. You can safely ignore it.
David, Ingo:
[ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending
Hi,
this is what just hit the ring buffer when I was surfing with elinks on a
brand-new -rc6.
Hannes
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.22-rc6 #14
---
Hi,
this is what just hit the ring buffer when I was surfing with elinks on a
brand-new -rc6.
Hannes
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.22-rc6 #14
---
On 6/25/07, Johannes Weiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
this is what just hit the ring buffer when I was surfing with elinks on a
brand-new -rc6.
Johannes:
This is a known bogus warning. You can safely ignore it.
David, Ingo:
[ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending
* Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode
number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that
rest of the fs/ code does, so that makes it difficult to teach lockdep
about this kind of lock ordering ... ]
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:01:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode
number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that
rest of the fs/ code does, so that makes it
16 matches
Mail list logo
