Hi, On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:31 -0600, Bob Peterson wrote: > 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 > >
I don't see why it needs to be "protected", I think that mutex is just a bug in that case unless you can prove otherwise... it seems to be doing nothing, Steve.
