Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback

From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 22:06:13 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101118030613.GQ3290@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101117061057.GA3989@amd>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:10:57PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:05:52PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 11/16/10 10:38 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >> as for the locking problems ... sorry about that!
> > > 
> > > That's no problem. So is that an ack? :)
> > > 
> > 
> > I'd like to test it with the original case it was supposed to solve; will
> > do that tomorrow.
> 
> OK, but it shouldn't make much difference, unless there is a lot of
> strange activity happening on the sb (like mount / umount / remount /
> freeze / etc).

This makes sense to me as well.

Acked-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>

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.

Or I can push it to Linus through the ext4 tree....

     	      	    	  	      	   - Ted