diff options
| author | Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@gmx.de> | 2008-09-13 02:33:12 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2008-09-13 14:41:51 -0700 |
| commit | 1558182f651798164418abf53f76786da0ea4a6f (patch) | |
| tree | ff27a7059beb86dd88eb04d8a99f57014f1f78ee | |
| parent | b261dfea48e81636516f4fa653667097638a8a62 (diff) | |
| download | lwn-1558182f651798164418abf53f76786da0ea4a6f.tar.gz lwn-1558182f651798164418abf53f76786da0ea4a6f.zip | |
bfs: fix Lockdep warning
This fixes:
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.27-rc5-00283-g70bb089 #68
---------------------------------------------
touch/6855 is trying to acquire lock:
(&info->bfs_lock){--..}, at: [<c02262f5>] bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
but task is already holding lock:
(&info->bfs_lock){--..}, at: [<c0226c00>] bfs_create+0x45/0x187
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by touch/6855:
#0: (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#5){--..}, at: [<c018ad13>] do_filp_open+0x10b/0x62f
#1: (&info->bfs_lock){--..}, at: [<c0226c00>] bfs_create+0x45/0x187
stack backtrace:
Pid: 6855, comm: touch Not tainted 2.6.27-rc5-00283-g70bb089 #68
[<c013e769>] validate_chain+0x458/0x9f4
[<c013bece>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd
[<c013f36b>] __lock_acquire+0x666/0x6e0
[<c013f440>] lock_acquire+0x5b/0x77
[<c02262f5>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[<c06aab74>] mutex_lock_nested+0xbc/0x234
[<c02262f5>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[<c02262f5>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[<c02262f5>] bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[<c0226257>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x0/0x18c
[<c01925e1>] generic_delete_inode+0x94/0xfe
[<c019265d>] generic_drop_inode+0x12/0x12f
[<c0191b7e>] iput+0x4b/0x4e
[<c0226d1e>] bfs_create+0x163/0x187
[<c0188b42>] vfs_create+0xa6/0x114
[<c018adb5>] do_filp_open+0x1ad/0x62f
[<c0107cdc>] ? native_sched_clock+0x82/0x96
[<c06ac309>] ? _spin_unlock+0x27/0x3c
[<c019379e>] ? alloc_fd+0xbf/0xc9
[<c06ae2f4>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x9d/0xab
[<c019379e>] ? alloc_fd+0xbf/0xc9
[<c0180391>] do_sys_open+0x42/0xb8
[<c041d564>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0xc/0x10
[<c0180449>] sys_open+0x1e/0x26
[<c01038bd>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
=======================
The problem is that we don't unlock the bfs->lock mutex before calling
iput (we do in the other cases).
Signed-off-by: Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@gmx.de>
Cc: Tigran Aivazian <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
| -rw-r--r-- | fs/bfs/dir.c | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/fs/bfs/dir.c b/fs/bfs/dir.c index 87ee5ccee348..ed8feb052df9 100644 --- a/fs/bfs/dir.c +++ b/fs/bfs/dir.c @@ -125,8 +125,8 @@ static int bfs_create(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, int mode, inode->i_ino); if (err) { inode_dec_link_count(inode); - iput(inode); mutex_unlock(&info->bfs_lock); + iput(inode); return err; } mutex_unlock(&info->bfs_lock); |