On (01/13/14 15:55), Andrew Morton wrote:
[..]
> >
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > @@ -553,14 +553,14 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram, bool
> > reset_capacity)
> > size_t index;
> > struct zram_meta *meta;
> >
> > - flush_work(&zram->free_work);
> > -
> > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > if (!zram->init_done) {
> > up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > + flush_work(&zram->free_work);
> > +
> > meta = zram->meta;
> > zram->init_done = 0;
>
> This makes zram.lock nest inside zram.init_lock, which afaict is new
> behaviour.
>
> That all seems OK and logical - has it been well tested with lockdep?
>
Patches 1-7
Tested-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <[email protected]>
-ss
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
