On 09/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello,
> The patches do not depend on each other.


> 1/2 is the trivial fix, imo -stable material. The bug is very old it seems,
> but today this race (leading to unbalanced unlock)  manifests itself via
> mysterious BUG_ON's in rcu/sync.c.

Yes. Al, could you take it? Or how else we should route it?

> 2/2 is old, I forgot to send it before. It was already reviewed by Dave and 
> Jan,
> but the generic/068 test from xfstests triggered the warning. This was fixed 
> by
> dbad7c993053 "xfs: stop holding ILOCK over filldir callbacks" so we can 
> hopefully
> kill the early-lockdep-release kludge.

Lets ignore it for now, it does lead to false-positives. Thanks again Jan and 
for your help.


Reply via email to