From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760158AbYB1PIR (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:08:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756103AbYB1PIF (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:08:05 -0500 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:45045 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754144AbYB1PIE (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:08:04 -0500 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:07:55 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Richter Subject: hfsplus_unlink...hfsplus_block_free: lockdep warning To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: Roman Zippel , Peter Zijlstra Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-Disposition: INLINE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I got this with 2.6.25-rc3 when doing an rm -rf on a HFS+ filesystem: [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.25-rc3 #6 --------------------------------------------- rm/7564 is trying to acquire lock: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [] hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209 [hfsplus] but task is already holding lock: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [] vfs_unlink+0x41/0xb7 other info that might help us debug this: 2 locks held by rm/7564: #0: (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#5/1){--..}, at: [] do_unlinkat+0x6c/0x154 #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [] vfs_unlink+0x41/0xb7 stack backtrace: Pid: 7564, comm: rm Not tainted 2.6.25-rc3 #6 Call Trace: [] __lock_acquire+0x849/0xbd5 [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209 [] lock_acquire+0x51/0x6c [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209 [] debug_mutex_lock_common+0x16/0x23 [] mutex_lock_nested+0xd9/0x268 [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209 [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_free_extents+0x54/0x9b [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_file_truncate+0xa4/0x2ce [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_delete_inode+0x57/0x5d [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_unlink+0xd0/0x158 [] vfs_unlink+0x5b/0xb7 [] do_unlinkat+0xb1/0x154 [] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x3a [] trace_hardirqs_on+0xf3/0x117 [] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x3a [] :hfsplus:hfsplus_uni2asc+0x251/0x29f [] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80 Is this merely a case for annotation? -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- --=- ===-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/