Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754506Ab0L3O6c (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:58:32 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:50432 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753221Ab0L3O6b (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:58:31 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Evgeniy Dushistov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] BKL removal follow-up Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:58:22 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.35-16-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Nick Bowler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1290007619-5787-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201012212354.06895.arnd@arndb.de> <20101224110458.GA18894@maclin> In-Reply-To: <20101224110458.GA18894@maclin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012301558.22191.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:5tYLmYu7HCyyKPzCExmBUGMi52Igsqku3dPHykexrXv KqSBTNBid3g3L64kwqj8IM8zN3WNK0HfK0EdqaKj0gTPneT9Cz Y7B2gOpuZNDpWnRza/9k/Yi6mss2+O5kOKHrktKZINNV9tGh9O A8Gy1qMNETDcpUbkjESb41EnVsQWhffVpdGenJ7hsHc7+mLjGP Fz11eu5gAlq+XmzeDLMVw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1625 Lines: 35 On Friday 24 December 2010, Evgeniy Dushistov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 22 November 2010 16:17:23 Nick Bowler wrote: > > > On 2010-11-21 09:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Yes, I'd be ok with UDF doing a "select BKL" along with a "default n" > > > > for BKL itself. > > > > > > > > I think UDF currently is the only sane reason to have BKL enabled any > > > > more, and yes, it would probably make it easier to configure things. > > > > > > UFS (which I use) also relies on BKL. > > > > Would you mind running a kernel with this patch and lockdep enabled then? > > > > It's quite likely that this doesn't work, but the easiest way to find > > out is to just try it if you don't understand the code. I can't see anything > > in the code that relies on the release-on-sleep semantics and there > > are no obvious recursive lock_kernel() calls. > > I see one without looking at code (am I missed something?). See below. Right, that was rather obvious, thanks for taking a look! Now that I have your attention, do you expect to be able to prepare a proper patch for 2.6.38? I don't have any experience with this file system, nor do I have useful ways of testing it, so that would be appreciated. Nick already volunteered to test patches, but I guess it would make more sense if you could do the patch. Arnd -- 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/