Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

2007-06-27 Thread Thomas Sattler
> Patch below should fix this (untested). Just tested 2.6.22-rc6: message is gone when patch is applied. But deleting some directories in /var/tmp (which lives on xfs) I got: BUG: MAX_LOCK_DEPTH too low! turning off the locking correctness validator. Thomas -- keep mailinglists in english,

Re: [xfs-masters] Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

2007-06-26 Thread Tim Shimmin
Patch looks good, Dave. (though, I stuffed up reviewing that bit of code previously:-) Oh, previous typo: s/inodes at the some time/inodes at the same time/ --Tim David Chinner wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote: I

Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

2007-06-26 Thread David Chinner
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote: > > It does both - parent-first/child-second and ascending inode # order, > > which is where the problem is. standing alone, these seem fine, but > > they don't appear to work when the child

Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

2007-06-26 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:01:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> [ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode >>> number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that

Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

2007-06-25 Thread David Chinner
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:01:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode > > number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that > > rest of the fs/ code does, so that m

Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

2007-06-25 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending inode > number order and not strictly the parent-first-child-second order that > rest of the fs/ code does, so that makes it difficult to teach lockdep > about this kind of lock ordering ..

Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

2007-06-25 Thread Satyam Sharma
On 6/25/07, Johannes Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] this is what just hit the ring buffer when I was surfing with elinks on a brand-new -rc6. Johannes: This is a known bogus warning. You can safely ignore it. David, Ingo: [ Ok, so we know that XFS wants to lock inodes in ascending i