On 14/09/2017 11:11, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (09/14/17 10:58), Laurent Dufour wrote: > [..] >> That's right, but here this is the sequence counter mm->mm_seq, not the >> vm_seq one. > > d'oh... you are right.
So I'm doubting about the probability of a deadlock here, but I don't like to see lockdep complaining. Is there an easy way to make it happy ?
