From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: locking typo in ext4_mb_add_n_trim() Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:36:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20090327233634.GI5176@mit.edu> References: <49CCDFDB.9000109@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dan Carpenter , adilger@sun.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:32859 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764049AbZC0Xgj (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:36:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49CCDFDB.9000109@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 09:16:59AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > although I wonder why we don't trip over this in spinlock debugging > (seems like it'd lead to a double unlock at times) I wonder if we can > tie this to any other bugs we've seen. I was wondering if it could be tied to the "rm -rf" soft lockup hang.... I wonder if vendor kernels (specifically, Ubuntu in this case) disable spinlock debugging, which is why we wouldn't have seen the double unlock warning. (Or maybe it happened earlier in the log, and users didn't notice it). - Ted