Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks

[Ingo Molnar]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:

> > i'd suggest to simply BUG() in schedule() if the superblock lock is held
> > not directly by lock_super. Holding the superblock lock is IMO quite rude
> > anyway (for performance and latency) - is there any place where we hold it
> > for a long time and it's unavoidable?
> 
> Ingo, schedule() has no bloody business _knowing_ about superblock
> locks in the first place. Yes, ext2 should not bother taking it at
> all. For completely unrelated reasons.

i only suggested this as a debugging helper, instead of the suggested
ext2_getblk() BUG() helper. Obviously schedule() has no business knowing
about filesystem locks.

        Ingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/