On 06/15/2013 07:05 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:52:44 -0400
Simo wrote:
On 06/13/2013 04:26 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
The only real solution I can think of is to put flock locks into the
blocked_list/blocked_hash too, or maybe giving them a simple hlist to
sit on.
I'll fix tha
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:52:44 -0400
Simo wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 04:26 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > The only real solution I can think of is to put flock locks into the
> > blocked_list/blocked_hash too, or maybe giving them a simple hlist to
> > sit on.
> >
> > I'll fix that up in the next iteration
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:45:46 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > When we convert over to using the i_lock to protect the i_flock list,
> > that will introduce a potential lock inversion problem in locks_show.
> > When we want to walk t
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> When we convert over to using the i_lock to protect the i_flock list,
> that will introduce a potential lock inversion problem in locks_show.
> When we want to walk the i_flock list, we'll need to take the i_lock.
>
> Rather than do th
When we convert over to using the i_lock to protect the i_flock list,
that will introduce a potential lock inversion problem in locks_show.
When we want to walk the i_flock list, we'll need to take the i_lock.
Rather than do that, just walk the global blocked_locks list and print
out any that are
5 matches
Mail list logo
