Searched hist:"3 b4683c294095b5f777c03307ef8c60f47320e12" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/xfs/ |
| H A D | xfs_bmap_util.c | diff 3b4683c294095b5f777c03307ef8c60f47320e12 Tue Apr 11 12:50:05 CDT 2017 Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> xfs: drop iolock from reclaim context to appease lockdep
Lockdep complains about use of the iolock in inode reclaim context
because it doesn't understand that reclaim has the last reference to
the inode, and thus an iolock->reclaim->iolock deadlock is not
possible.
The iolock is technically not necessary in xfs_inactive() and was
only added to appease an assert in xfs_free_eofblocks(), which can
be called from other non-reclaim contexts. Therefore, just kill the
assert and drop the use of the iolock from reclaim context to quiet
lockdep.
Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
|
| H A D | xfs_inode.c | diff 3b4683c294095b5f777c03307ef8c60f47320e12 Tue Apr 11 12:50:05 CDT 2017 Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> xfs: drop iolock from reclaim context to appease lockdep
Lockdep complains about use of the iolock in inode reclaim context
because it doesn't understand that reclaim has the last reference to
the inode, and thus an iolock->reclaim->iolock deadlock is not
possible.
The iolock is technically not necessary in xfs_inactive() and was
only added to appease an assert in xfs_free_eofblocks(), which can
be called from other non-reclaim contexts. Therefore, just kill the
assert and drop the use of the iolock from reclaim context to quiet
lockdep.
Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
|