From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:53:50 +0000 Message-ID: <20101118185350.GD19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20101116110058.GA4298@amd> <20101116130146.GG4757@quack.suse.cz> <4CE35A6D.2040906@redhat.com> <20101117043845.GA3586@amd> <4CE362B0.6040607@redhat.com> <20101117061057.GA3989@amd> <20101118030613.GQ3290@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Piggin , Eric Sandeen , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Ted Ts'o Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:38840 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755970Ab0KRSyG (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:54:06 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101118030613.GQ3290@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:06:13PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote: > This makes sense to me as well. > > Acked-by: "Theodore Ts'o" > > So how do we want to send this patch to Linus? It's a writeback > change, so through some mm tree? Or it lives in fs/fs-writeback.c > (which I always thought was weird; why is it not in mm/?), so maybe > through the VFS tree, even though I don't think Al would really care > about this patch. As in "don't really like", TBH. I'll take it (with saner commit message and comment in the source), but I really wonder if we are just asking for more trouble down the road. Specifically, I *really* want to see locking rules for that sucker spelled out. What can be held by caller?