> No it's not, it all goes together. spufs_create_context() always > unlocked & dropped the dentry before returning, so I assumed the > lock had to be dropped before fsnotify. > > Note that if the problem is that the lock has to be dropped before > spu_forget(), then we should indeed move it back into the leaf functions > and just remove all the unlock path from the top ones. It's a bit nasty > how we drop the mutex first, then do spu_forget, then drop the dentry > but we could go back to doing that. > > What I want is consistent semantics. It's just silly to have 3 different > stacking levels which all 3 may or may not be responsible to dropping > the lock & dentry depending on circumstances.
Why not leave unlock/dput to the caller? Details of deadlocks caused by that approach, please... _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
