Re: hugetlb locking bug.

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:19:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 16:57 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>
> >> Because it doesn't use iget or unlock_new_inode, but rather calls
> >> directly into new_inode(). ?It and other filesystems not using
> >> unlock_new_inode will need a local copy of that logic.
> >
> > Is there a sane reason they do their own magic, and thus need a copy of
> > the logic, instead of using the generic code that already has it?
> 
> Hmm. That all seems to be just an oversight.
> 
> Does this trivial one-liner work?
> 
> (Warning: whitespace damage and TOTALLY UNTESTED)

It'll get rid of the lockdep spat in favour of a WARN_ON, given that
inodes from new_inode() never have I_NEW set.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/