Re: [PATCH] Fix for bad lock balance in Containers

2007-06-28 Thread Paul Menage
On 6/26/07, Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are a few questions I had with respect to the current code, Why is the increment of s_active dependent on the return value of simple_set_mnt? I think it's because, as you observed, grab_super() is static and hence not reachable from co

Re: [PATCH] Fix for bad lock balance in Containers

2007-06-27 Thread Dhaval Giani
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:30:11AM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote: Hi, There was a mistake in the patch. Thanks to Andrew Morton for pointing it out. Sending out a fresh patch. Sorry for the mistake! > BUG_ON(ret); > } else { > /* Reuse the existing superblock */ > +

Re: [PATCH] Fix for bad lock balance in Containers

2007-06-26 Thread Bharata B Rao
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:30:11AM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote: > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc4/kernel/container.c 2007-06-13 15:38:32.0 > +0530 > +++ old/kernel/container.c2007-06-25 00:55:03.0 +0530 > @@ -995,6 +995,7 @@ static int container_get_sb(struct file_ >

[PATCH] Fix for bad lock balance in Containers

2007-06-25 Thread Dhaval Giani
Hi, I have been going through the containers code and trying it out. I tried mounting the same hierarchy at two different points and I got a bad locking balance warning. = [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ] - mount/4467 is