Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-09 Thread David Chinner
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-09 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-09 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()

2007-01-08 Thread Ingo Molnar
* 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

Re: [**BULK SPAM**] Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread Nathan Scott
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread David Chinner
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread Nathan Scott
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread Andrew Morton
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:

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread Eric Sandeen
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread Eric Sandeen
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread Andrew Morton
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

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread Andrew Morton
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

Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()

2007-01-08 Thread Andrew Morton
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

bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

2007-01-08 Thread David Chinner
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

Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()

2007-01-08 Thread Eric Sandeen
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 >>

Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()

2007-01-08 Thread Sami Farin
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

Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()

2007-01-07 Thread David Chinner
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

xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock()

2007-01-03 Thread Sami Farin
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>