Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751575AbbBQAfe (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:35:34 -0500 Received: from mail-yh0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]:50660 "EHLO mail-yh0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751244AbbBQAfd (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:35:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:35:28 -0500 From: Jeff Layton To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "J. Bruce Fields" , Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] please pull file-locking related changes for v3.20 Message-ID: <20150216193528.55794f47@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20150209055540.2f2a3689@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20150216133200.GB3270@node.dhcp.inet.fi> <20150216090054.62455465@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20150216190254.3b66a9ba@tlielax.poochiereds.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2120 Lines: 56 On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:21:30 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > Now that I look, it may be best to just revert this whole set for now. > > Linus, are you amenable to doing that? > > Sure. But I'd prefer seeing how hard it would be to fix things first. > If this was at the end of the release cycle, I'd revert it > immediately. As it is, try to see how had it is. > Fair enough. I just didn't want to hold up -rc1. I should be able to fix up the bugs within the next day or so. I've got a small stack of fixes that I'll send along soon. > The bugs I found might be as easy as just the attached (TOTALLY > UNTESTED) patch. The comment about a higher-priority process and > sched_resced() is just complete and utter crap. If somebody holds a > read lock and upgrades it to a write lock, there is absolutely *zero* > reason to let some higher-priority process get the write-lock first - > that's just simply semantically wrong bullshit. "Higher priority" does > not mean "can punch through locks". > The patch is pretty close to one that I have, so yes I think that will fix it. There is one bug in the first loop though -- "old_fl" should be set to "fl" there. I'm also happy to remove the "drop the spinlock" thing. It's bothered me for a while... > Removing the silly incorrect counts should be trivial too. There > really are not very many users, and they can just walk the list > instead. > Yes, that's a straightforward revert. > Now, if you've found other more fundamental bugs that look unfixable, > then that might mean that reverting it all is unavoidable, but.. > > Linus No, I don't think there's anything unfixable there. I did find another bug, but it's simple to fix. -- Jeff Layton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/