On 8/7/07, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The typical annotation would be using spin_lock_nested/mutex_lock_nested
> with a non-0 nesting level for this one case.
>
OK, I'll look into this when I get back from vacation.
Thanks,
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
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 mou
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 guara
Hi Paul,
I have hit upon a circular locking dependency while doing an rmdir on a
directory inside the containers code. I believe that it is safe as no one
should be able to rmdir when a container is getting mounted.
To reproduce it, just do a rmdir inside the container.
4 matches
Mail list logo
