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
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 02:30:24AM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Commit 0244756edc4b ("ufs: sb mutex merge + mutex_destroy") introduces
> deadlocks in ufs_new_inode() and ufs_free_inode() that call lock_ufs()
> being already invoked with mutex held.
>
> ufs_free_inode() is always invoked with
Commit 0244756edc4b ("ufs: sb mutex merge + mutex_destroy") introduces
deadlocks in ufs_new_inode() and ufs_free_inode() that call lock_ufs()
being already invoked with mutex held.
ufs_free_inode() is always invoked with mutex locked, while
ufs_new_inode() is called with mutex locked two times of
3 matches
Mail list logo
