On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:21 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 20-03-07 14:35:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex
> > > being
> > > acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
> > > con_close()
On Tue 20-03-07 14:35:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex being
> > acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
> > con_close() there's another inversion with i_mutex which is also acquired
> > along
On Tue 20-03-07 14:44:46, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:19:09PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:19:09PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > IMHO lockdep found that two
> Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex being
> acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
> con_close() there's another inversion with i_mutex which is also acquired
> along the path for sysfs. And we can hardly get rid of it in the
On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > ...
> > > IMHO lockdep found that two locks are taken in different order:
> > >
> > > -> #1: 1) tty_mutex in
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> IMHO lockdep found that two locks are taken in different order:
>
> -> #1: 1) tty_mutex in con_console() 2) dqptr_sem (somewhere later)
> -> #0: 1) dqptr_sem 2) tty_console in dquot_alloc_space() with print_warning()
Should
On 15-03-2007 20:17, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:50:14 +0100 Folkert van Heusden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
...
> Haha ok :-)
>
> Good, since I run 2.6.20 with these debugging switches switched on, I
> get occasionally errors like these. I get ALWAYS the following
On 15-03-2007 20:17, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:50:14 +0100 Folkert van Heusden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
Haha ok :-)
Good, since I run 2.6.20 with these debugging switches switched on, I
get occasionally errors like these. I get ALWAYS the following error
when
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
IMHO lockdep found that two locks are taken in different order:
- #1: 1) tty_mutex in con_console() 2) dqptr_sem (somewhere later)
- #0: 1) dqptr_sem 2) tty_console in dquot_alloc_space() with print_warning()
Should be:
-
On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
IMHO lockdep found that two locks are taken in different order:
- #1: 1) tty_mutex in con_console()
Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex being
acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
con_close() there's another inversion with i_mutex which is also acquired
along the path for sysfs. And we can hardly get rid of it in the quota
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:19:09PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
IMHO lockdep found that two locks are taken
On Tue 20-03-07 14:44:46, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:19:09PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Tue 20-03-07 14:35:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex being
acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
con_close() there's another inversion with i_mutex which is also acquired
along the path
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 15:21 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 20-03-07 14:35:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex
being
acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
con_close() there's another
16 matches
Mail list logo
