On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 13:10 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > I'm away from work at the moment and can't investigate fully, but it > looks as though this may be the same one that I mentioned in the > introductory email to the patchset. If so, it's a false positive - > there's a point in the container mount code where we need to lock a > newly-created (and hence guaranteed unlocked) directory inode while > holding container mutex. This makes the lockdep code think that > inode->i_mutex nests inside container_mutex, when in fact > container_mutex nests outside inode->i_mutex in all cases except this > one case where i_mutex can't possibly be locked. > > I've not learned enough about lockdep yet to figure out how to shut it > up in this case.
The typical annotation would be using spin_lock_nested/mutex_lock_nested with a non-0 nesting level for this one case. - 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/
