Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:04:20AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:51:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I don't even know what code we're talking about here... > > > > I'm under the impression that XFS will return to userspace with a > > filesystem lock held, under

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:51:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > I don't even know what code we're talking about here... > > I'm under the impression that XFS will return to userspace with a > filesystem lock held, under the expectation (ie: requirement) that > userspace will later come in and

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 04:19:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there > would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held?? Well, there might be nicer solutions, but for now we should revert the broken commit to change

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 04:19:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: Seems not. I think people were hoping that various nasties in there would go away. We return to userspace with a kernel lock held?? Well, there might be nicer solutions, but for now we should revert the broken commit to change the

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:51:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: I don't even know what code we're talking about here... I'm under the impression that XFS will return to userspace with a filesystem lock held, under the expectation (ie: requirement) that userspace will later come in and release

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:04:20AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:51:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: I don't even know what code we're talking about here... I'm under the impression that XFS will return to userspace with a filesystem lock held, under the

Re: [**BULK SPAM**] Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 15:49 +1100, David Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:17:03PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > If that's not true, then what _is_ happening in there? > > > > This particular case was a device mapper stack

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:17:03PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600 > > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 > > > > Eric Sandeen

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600 > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 > > > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Andrew Morton wrote: > > >>> On

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 > > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Andrew Morton wrote: > >>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 > >>> David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08,

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: ... fstab was there just fine after -u. Oh, that

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 > > David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> Sami Farin wrote: > On Mon, Jan

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Sami Farin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: > > > ... > > >>> fstab was there just fine after -u. > > >> Oh, that

bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Sami Farin wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: > > ... > >>> fstab was there just fine after -u. > >> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed? > > > > Looked like it =) > > Hm, it was proposed upstream a

bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: ... fstab was there just fine after -u. Oh, that still hasn't been fixed? Looked like it =) Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: ... fstab was there just fine after -u. Oh, that still hasn't been

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote: ... fstab was there just fine after -u. Oh, that still

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: Sami Farin wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100 David Chinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 08,

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28

Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:17:03PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600 Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [**BULK SPAM**] Re: bd_mount_mutex - bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 15:49 +1100, David Chinner wrote: On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:17:03PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 19:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: If that's not true, then what _is_ happening in there? This particular case was a device mapper stack trace,