* [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()
@ 2017-05-03 15:17 ` Rabin Vincent
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rabin Vincent @ 2017-05-03 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sfrench-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg
Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
samba-technical-w/Ol4Ecudpl8XjKLYN78aQ,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
pshilovsky-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg,
jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA, Rabin Vincent
From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>
cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even
though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains
about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be
told that this nesting is OK.
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
4.11.0+ #20 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
cat/701 is trying to acquire lock:
(&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
but task is already holding lock:
(&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
1 lock held by cat/701:
#0: (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 701 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.11.0+ #20
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
__lock_acquire+0x17dd/0x2260
? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
? preempt_schedule_irq+0x6b/0x80
lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
? lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
down_read+0x2d/0x70
? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
? printk+0x43/0x4b
cifs_readpage_worker+0x327/0x8a0
cifs_readpage+0x8c/0x2a0
generic_file_read_iter+0x692/0xd00
cifs_strict_readv+0x29f/0x310
generic_file_splice_read+0x11c/0x1c0
do_splice_to+0xa5/0xc0
splice_direct_to_actor+0xfa/0x350
? generic_pipe_buf_nosteal+0x10/0x10
do_splice_direct+0xb5/0xe0
do_sendfile+0x278/0x3a0
SyS_sendfile64+0xc4/0xe0
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xbe
Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>
---
fs/cifs/file.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
index 21d4045..64b590b 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
@@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ cifs_relock_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile)
struct cifs_tcon *tcon = tlink_tcon(cfile->tlink);
int rc = 0;
- down_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
+ down_read_nested(&cinode->lock_sem, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
/* can cache locks - no need to relock */
up_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()
@ 2017-05-03 15:17 ` Rabin Vincent
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rabin Vincent @ 2017-05-03 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sfrench
Cc: linux-cifs, samba-technical, linux-kernel, pshilovsky, jlayton,
Rabin Vincent
From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@axis.com>
cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even
though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains
about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be
told that this nesting is OK.
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
4.11.0+ #20 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
cat/701 is trying to acquire lock:
(&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
but task is already holding lock:
(&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
1 lock held by cat/701:
#0: (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 701 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.11.0+ #20
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
__lock_acquire+0x17dd/0x2260
? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
? preempt_schedule_irq+0x6b/0x80
lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
? lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
down_read+0x2d/0x70
? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
? printk+0x43/0x4b
cifs_readpage_worker+0x327/0x8a0
cifs_readpage+0x8c/0x2a0
generic_file_read_iter+0x692/0xd00
cifs_strict_readv+0x29f/0x310
generic_file_splice_read+0x11c/0x1c0
do_splice_to+0xa5/0xc0
splice_direct_to_actor+0xfa/0x350
? generic_pipe_buf_nosteal+0x10/0x10
do_splice_direct+0xb5/0xe0
do_sendfile+0x278/0x3a0
SyS_sendfile64+0xc4/0xe0
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xbe
Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@axis.com>
---
fs/cifs/file.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
index 21d4045..64b590b 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
@@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ cifs_relock_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile)
struct cifs_tcon *tcon = tlink_tcon(cfile->tlink);
int rc = 0;
- down_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
+ down_read_nested(&cinode->lock_sem, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
/* can cache locks - no need to relock */
up_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()
2017-05-03 15:17 ` Rabin Vincent
@ 2017-05-10 1:34 ` Pavel Shilovsky
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Shilovsky @ 2017-05-10 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rabin Vincent
Cc: Steve French, linux-cifs, samba-technical, Kernel Mailing List,
Jeff Layton, Rabin Vincent
2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>:
> From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>
>
> cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even
> though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains
> about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be
> told that this nesting is OK.
>
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 4.11.0+ #20 Not tainted
> ---------------------------------------------
> cat/701 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 1 lock held by cat/701:
> #0: (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 701 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.11.0+ #20
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
> __lock_acquire+0x17dd/0x2260
> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
> ? preempt_schedule_irq+0x6b/0x80
> lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
> ? lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
> down_read+0x2d/0x70
> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
> cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
> ? printk+0x43/0x4b
> cifs_readpage_worker+0x327/0x8a0
> cifs_readpage+0x8c/0x2a0
> generic_file_read_iter+0x692/0xd00
> cifs_strict_readv+0x29f/0x310
> generic_file_splice_read+0x11c/0x1c0
> do_splice_to+0xa5/0xc0
> splice_direct_to_actor+0xfa/0x350
> ? generic_pipe_buf_nosteal+0x10/0x10
> do_splice_direct+0xb5/0xe0
> do_sendfile+0x278/0x3a0
> SyS_sendfile64+0xc4/0xe0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xbe
>
> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> fs/cifs/file.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
> index 21d4045..64b590b 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ cifs_relock_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile)
> struct cifs_tcon *tcon = tlink_tcon(cfile->tlink);
> int rc = 0;
>
> - down_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
> + down_read_nested(&cinode->lock_sem, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
> /* can cache locks - no need to relock */
> up_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
> --
> 2.1.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Acked-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov-0li6OtcxBFHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org>
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()
@ 2017-05-10 1:34 ` Pavel Shilovsky
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Shilovsky @ 2017-05-10 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rabin Vincent
Cc: Steve French, linux-cifs, samba-technical, Kernel Mailing List,
Jeff Layton, Rabin Vincent
2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@axis.com>:
> From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@axis.com>
>
> cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even
> though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains
> about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be
> told that this nesting is OK.
>
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 4.11.0+ #20 Not tainted
> ---------------------------------------------
> cat/701 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 1 lock held by cat/701:
> #0: (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 701 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.11.0+ #20
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
> __lock_acquire+0x17dd/0x2260
> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
> ? preempt_schedule_irq+0x6b/0x80
> lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
> ? lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
> down_read+0x2d/0x70
> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
> cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
> ? printk+0x43/0x4b
> cifs_readpage_worker+0x327/0x8a0
> cifs_readpage+0x8c/0x2a0
> generic_file_read_iter+0x692/0xd00
> cifs_strict_readv+0x29f/0x310
> generic_file_splice_read+0x11c/0x1c0
> do_splice_to+0xa5/0xc0
> splice_direct_to_actor+0xfa/0x350
> ? generic_pipe_buf_nosteal+0x10/0x10
> do_splice_direct+0xb5/0xe0
> do_sendfile+0x278/0x3a0
> SyS_sendfile64+0xc4/0xe0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xbe
>
> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@axis.com>
> ---
> fs/cifs/file.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
> index 21d4045..64b590b 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ cifs_relock_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile)
> struct cifs_tcon *tcon = tlink_tcon(cfile->tlink);
> int rc = 0;
>
> - down_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
> + down_read_nested(&cinode->lock_sem, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
> /* can cache locks - no need to relock */
> up_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
> --
> 2.1.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Acked-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()
2017-05-10 1:34 ` Pavel Shilovsky
@ 2017-05-10 1:38 ` Steve French
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steve French @ 2017-05-10 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Shilovsky
Cc: Rabin Vincent, Steve French, linux-cifs, samba-technical,
Kernel Mailing List, Jeff Layton, Rabin Vincent
merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next
thx
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Pavel Shilovsky <pshilovsky-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>:
>> From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even
>> though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains
>> about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be
>> told that this nesting is OK.
>>
>> =============================================
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 4.11.0+ #20 Not tainted
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> cat/701 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0
>> ----
>> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
>> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>>
>> 1 lock held by cat/701:
>> #0: (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> CPU: 0 PID: 701 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.11.0+ #20
>> Call Trace:
>> dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
>> __lock_acquire+0x17dd/0x2260
>> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
>> ? preempt_schedule_irq+0x6b/0x80
>> lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
>> ? lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
>> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>> down_read+0x2d/0x70
>> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>> cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>> ? printk+0x43/0x4b
>> cifs_readpage_worker+0x327/0x8a0
>> cifs_readpage+0x8c/0x2a0
>> generic_file_read_iter+0x692/0xd00
>> cifs_strict_readv+0x29f/0x310
>> generic_file_splice_read+0x11c/0x1c0
>> do_splice_to+0xa5/0xc0
>> splice_direct_to_actor+0xfa/0x350
>> ? generic_pipe_buf_nosteal+0x10/0x10
>> do_splice_direct+0xb5/0xe0
>> do_sendfile+0x278/0x3a0
>> SyS_sendfile64+0xc4/0xe0
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xbe
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>> fs/cifs/file.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
>> index 21d4045..64b590b 100644
>> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
>> @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ cifs_relock_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile)
>> struct cifs_tcon *tcon = tlink_tcon(cfile->tlink);
>> int rc = 0;
>>
>> - down_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
>> + down_read_nested(&cinode->lock_sem, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>> if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
>> /* can cache locks - no need to relock */
>> up_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
>> --
>> 2.1.4
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> Acked-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov-0li6OtcxBFHby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org>
>
> Best regards,
> Pavel Shilovsky
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Thanks,
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()
@ 2017-05-10 1:38 ` Steve French
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steve French @ 2017-05-10 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Shilovsky
Cc: Rabin Vincent, Steve French, linux-cifs, samba-technical,
Kernel Mailing List, Jeff Layton, Rabin Vincent
merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next
thx
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Pavel Shilovsky <pshilovsky@samba.org> wrote:
> 2017-05-03 8:17 GMT-07:00 Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@axis.com>:
>> From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@axis.com>
>>
>> cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even
>> though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv(). Lockdep complains
>> about this. AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be
>> told that this nesting is OK.
>>
>> =============================================
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 4.11.0+ #20 Not tainted
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> cat/701 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0
>> ----
>> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
>> lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>>
>> 1 lock held by cat/701:
>> #0: (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> CPU: 0 PID: 701 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.11.0+ #20
>> Call Trace:
>> dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
>> __lock_acquire+0x17dd/0x2260
>> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
>> ? preempt_schedule_irq+0x6b/0x80
>> lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
>> ? lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
>> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>> down_read+0x2d/0x70
>> ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>> cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
>> ? printk+0x43/0x4b
>> cifs_readpage_worker+0x327/0x8a0
>> cifs_readpage+0x8c/0x2a0
>> generic_file_read_iter+0x692/0xd00
>> cifs_strict_readv+0x29f/0x310
>> generic_file_splice_read+0x11c/0x1c0
>> do_splice_to+0xa5/0xc0
>> splice_direct_to_actor+0xfa/0x350
>> ? generic_pipe_buf_nosteal+0x10/0x10
>> do_splice_direct+0xb5/0xe0
>> do_sendfile+0x278/0x3a0
>> SyS_sendfile64+0xc4/0xe0
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xbe
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@axis.com>
>> ---
>> fs/cifs/file.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
>> index 21d4045..64b590b 100644
>> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
>> @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ cifs_relock_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cfile)
>> struct cifs_tcon *tcon = tlink_tcon(cfile->tlink);
>> int rc = 0;
>>
>> - down_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
>> + down_read_nested(&cinode->lock_sem, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>> if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
>> /* can cache locks - no need to relock */
>> up_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
>> --
>> 2.1.4
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> Acked-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>
>
> Best regards,
> Pavel Shilovsky
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Thanks,
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-05-10 1:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-05-03 15:17 [PATCH] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file() Rabin Vincent
2017-05-03 15:17 ` Rabin Vincent
[not found] ` <1493824641-9455-1-git-send-email-rabin.vincent-VrBV9hrLPhE@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-10 1:34 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2017-05-10 1:34 ` Pavel Shilovsky
[not found] ` <CAKywueRqQyaN4AQCDx_F7qVAW3-Gkwar1Q0KjOkcAz+ZcDovUw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-05-10 1:38 ` Steve French
2017-05-10 1:38 ` Steve French
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.