On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Jerome Marchand <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lockdep warns about a inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> > {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. The culpritt is the inode->i_mutex taken in > nfs_file_direct_write(). This code was introduced by commit a9ab5e840669 > ("nfs: page cache invalidation for dio"). > This naive test patch avoid to take the mutex on a swapfile and makes > lockdep happy again. However I don't know much about NFS code and I > assume it's probably not the proper solution. Any thought? > > Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <[email protected]>
NFS is not the only O_DIRECT implementation to set the inode->i_mutex. Why can't this be fixed in the generic swap code instead of adding yet-another-exception-for-IS_SWAPFILE? Cheers Trond -- 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/
