On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 03:44:03PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote:
> Just saw this on 2.6.39-rc2 after half a day or so of uptime. I've
> never seen it before today so it may be a regression from 2.6.38.
> Nothing seems have failed as a result. Please let me know if you
> need any more info.
>
Could you try this patch. I know it may be hard to reproduce, but the
issue is that we are recursing down the locks in a tree/list and we changed a
lock from being nested to being a parent. This patch tells lockdep about
what we did.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
diff --git a/fs/autofs4/expire.c b/fs/autofs4/expire.c
index 450f529..1feb68e 100644
--- a/fs/autofs4/expire.c
+++ b/fs/autofs4/expire.c
@@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ start:
/* Negative dentry - try next */
if (!simple_positive(q)) {
spin_unlock(&p->d_lock);
+ lock_set_subclass(&q->d_lock.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
p = q;
goto again;
}
@@ -186,6 +187,7 @@ again:
/* Negative dentry - try next */
if (!simple_positive(ret)) {
spin_unlock(&p->d_lock);
+ lock_set_subclass(&ret->d_lock.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
p = ret;
goto again;
}
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
