Re: [RFC][PATCH] reiserfs vs BKL

[Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Replace all the lock_kernel() instances with reiserfs_write_lock(sb),
> and make that use an actual per super-block mutex instead of
> lock_kernel().
> 
> This should make reiserfs safe from PREEMPT_BKL=n, since it seems to
> rely on being able to schedule. Also, it removes the dependency on the
> BKL, and thereby is not prone to cause prio inversion with remaining BKL
> users (notably tty).
> 
> Compile tested only, since I didn't dare boot it.

NACK.

Believe me, I would *love* to nuke the BKL from reiserfs, but a search
and replace of this nature is just wrong. reiserfs_write_lock() using
the BKL isn't an accident - it depends on its nesting properties. If you
did try to boot this kernel, you'd deadlock pretty quickly.

This one has been on my TODO list for a long time. Interestingly, I've
been doing reiserfs xattr development recently using 2.6.21-rc7-git2,
and I'm not seeing any of these messages.

# CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL is not set

- -Jeff

- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGKjhxLPWxlyuTD7IRAgCkAJ95MUehySJUUjBzl1ldr7BxESmQQACgjnkw
73KpJaH2G725AMJeWD02Arg=
=PaIV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----