On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 04:13:25PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Freitag, 5. Januar 2007 13:16 schrieb Frederik Deweerdt:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:02:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.20-rc3/2.6.20-rc3-mm1/
> > >
> are you sure there's a code path that takes these locks in the reverse order?
> I've looked through the code twice and not found any. It doesn't make much
> sense to first lock the file and afterwards the directory.
You're right, an annotation should be enough, what do you think?
Regards,
Frederik
Signed-off-by: Frederik Deweerdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/fs/sysfs/inode.c b/fs/sysfs/inode.c
index 8c533cb..3b5574b 100644
--- a/fs/sysfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/sysfs/inode.c
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ static inline void orphan_all_buffers(st
struct sysfs_buffer_collection *set = node->i_private;
struct sysfs_buffer *buf;
- mutex_lock(&node->i_mutex);
+ mutex_lock_nested(&node->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_CHILD);
if (node->i_private) {
list_for_each_entry(buf, &set->associates, associates) {
down(&buf->sem);
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ int sysfs_hash_and_remove(struct dentry
return -ENOENT;
parent_sd = dir->d_fsdata;
- mutex_lock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
+ mutex_lock_nested(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
list_for_each_entry(sd, &parent_sd->s_children, s_sibling) {
if (!sd->s_element)
continue;
> Regarding your patch, it should work, but I don't see the need for it.
>
> Regards
> Oliver
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
