On Tue 11-08-15 15:16:26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/11, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 04:59:42PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > One would like to construct the lock chain as:
> > >
> > > CPU0 (chown foo dir) CPU1 (readdir dir) CPU2 (page fault)
> > > process Y
On 08/11, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 04:59:42PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > One would like to construct the lock chain as:
> >
> > CPU0 (chown foo dir)CPU1 (readdir dir) CPU2 (page fault)
> > process Y process X, thread 0 process X, thread 1
> >
>
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 04:59:42PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 07-08-15 21:55:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I'll try to re-check/re-test, but so far I think that this and the
> > previous series are correct. However 3/4 from the previous series
> > (attached at the end just in case) uncovers (I
Hello,
On Fri 07-08-15 21:55:52, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I'll try to re-check/re-test, but so far I think that this and the
> previous series are correct. However 3/4 from the previous series
> (attached at the end just in case) uncovers (I think) some problems
> in xfs locking.
>
> What should
Jan, Dave, please help.
I'll try to re-check/re-test, but so far I think that this and the
previous series are correct. However 3/4 from the previous series
(attached at the end just in case) uncovers (I think) some problems
in xfs locking.
What should I do now?
On 07/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
On top of "[PATCH 0/4] sb_write: lockdep fixes/cleanups" series.
Now that it was reviewed (thanks Jan!), let me send the actual
conversion.
1-2 add the simple percpu_rw_semaphore changes, this does not
conflict with the pending rcu_sync changes.
3/4 is really ugly but please see the changelog, th
6 matches
Mail list logo
