On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:18 +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote: > You can't do gfs2_trans_add_bh under a spinlock, but there is no reason > why you can't just reverse the order of these two statements to fix it, > > Steve.
Hi Steve, If we reverse the two statements, the trans_add_bh is not protected at all, which I assume was the purpose of the mutex in the first place. I'm not sure this is buying us much anyway, so perhaps we should forget it. Regards, Bob Peterson
