On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 16:03 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 22:52 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > On Friday September 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 13:54 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > > > > > > Looks like a real deadlock here. It seems to me #2 is the easiest to > > > break. > > > > I guess it could deadlock if you tried to add /dev/md0 as a component > > of /dev/md0. I should probably check for that somewhere. > > In other cases the array->member ordering ensures there is no > > deadlock. > > > > > 1 2 > > open(/dev/md0) > > open(/dev/md0) > - do_open() -> bdev->bd_mutex > ioctl(/dev/md0, hotadd) > - md_ioctl() -> mddev->reconfig_mutex > -- hot_add_disk() > --- bind_rdev_to_array() > ---- bd_claim_by_disk() > ----- bd_claim_by_kobject() > -- md_open() > --- mddev_lock() > ---- mutex_lock(mddev->reconfig_mutex) > ------ mutex_lock(bdev->bd_mutex) >
D'0h, 1:bdev->bd_mutex is ofcourse rdev->bd_mutex; the slave device's mutex. So mddev->bd_mutex wants to be another class all-together. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
