On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:04:20AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:51:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I don't even know what code we're talking about here...
> >
> > I'm under the impression that XFS will return to userspace with a
> > filesystem lock held, under
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:51:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I don't even know what code we're talking about here...
>
> I'm under the impression that XFS will return to userspace with a
> filesystem lock held, under the expectation (ie: requirement) that
> userspace will later come in and rel
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 04:19:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there
> would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held??
Well, there might be nicer solutions, but for now we should revert the
broken commit to change th
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Revert bd_mount_mutex back to a semaphore so that xfs_freeze -f
> > /mnt/newtest; xfs_freeze -u /mnt/newtest works safely and doesn't
> > produce lockdep warnings.
>
> Sad. The alternative would be to implement
> mutex_unlock_dont_warn_if_a_diff
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 15:49 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:17:03PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > If that's not true, then what _is_ happening in there?
> >
> > This particular case was a device mapper stack tr
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:17:03PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600
> > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
> > > > Eric Sandeen
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600
> Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
> > > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >>> On Tue
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
> > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
> >>> David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Sami Farin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 20
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Sami Farin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
...
fstab was there just fine after -u.
Oh, that still
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
> > David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> Sami Farin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Sami Farin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > > ...
> > >>> fstab was there just fine after -u.
> > >> Oh, that
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:37:34 +1100
David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 02:14:21AM +0200, Sami Farin wrote:
> > just a simple test I did...
> > xfs_freeze -f /mnt/newtest
> > cp /etc/fstab /mnt/newtest
> > xfs_freeze -u /mnt/newtest
> >
> > 2007-01-04 01:44:30.3419795
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Sami Farin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > ...
> >>> fstab was there just fine after -u.
> >> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
> >
> > Looked like it =)
>
> Hm, it was proposed upstream a
Sami Farin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> ...
>>> fstab was there just fine after -u.
>> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
>
> Looked like it =)
Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137
I guess it got lost?
-Eric
>>
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
...
> > fstab was there just fine after -u.
>
> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
Looked like it =)
> Generic bug, not XFS - the global
> semaphore->mutex cleanup converted the bd_mount_sem to a mutex, and
> mutexes complain loudly whe
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 02:14:21AM +0200, Sami Farin wrote:
> just a simple test I did...
> xfs_freeze -f /mnt/newtest
> cp /etc/fstab /mnt/newtest
> xfs_freeze -u /mnt/newtest
>
> 2007-01-04 01:44:30.341979500 <4>BUG: warning at
> kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()
> 2007-01-04 01:44:3
just a simple test I did...
xfs_freeze -f /mnt/newtest
cp /etc/fstab /mnt/newtest
xfs_freeze -u /mnt/newtest
2007-01-04 01:44:30.341979500 <4>BUG: warning at
kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()
2007-01-04 01:44:30.385771500 <4> [] dump_trace+0x215/0x21a
2007-01-04 01:44:30.385774500 <4>
18 matches
Mail list logo