On 09/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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
> but the generic/068 test from xfstests triggered the warning. This was fixed
> dbad7c993053 "xfs: stop holding ILOCK over filldir callbacks" so we can
> kill the early-lockdep-release kludge.
Lets ignore it for now, it does lead to false-positives. Thanks again Jan and
for your help.