Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()

2017-05-09 Thread Steve French
merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next thx On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > 2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent : >> From: Rabin Vincent >> >> cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()

2017-05-09 Thread Steve French
merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next thx On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > 2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent : >> From: Rabin Vincent >> >> cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even >> though it was already performed in

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()

2017-05-09 Thread Pavel Shilovsky
2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent : > From: Rabin Vincent > > cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even > though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains > about this. AFAICS, there is no

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()

2017-05-09 Thread Pavel Shilovsky
2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent : > From: Rabin Vincent > > cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even > though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains > about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be

[PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()

2017-05-03 Thread Rabin Vincent
From: Rabin Vincent cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be told that this nesting is OK.

[PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()

2017-05-03 Thread Rabin Vincent
From: Rabin Vincent cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be told that this nesting is OK.