On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:

quoted text
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
> > David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> Sami Farin wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>> fstab was there just fine after -u.
> >>>>> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
> >>>> Looked like it =)
> >>> Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:
> >>>
> >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137
> >>>
> >>> I guess it got lost?
> >> Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge?
> > 
> > Seems not.  I think people were hoping that various nasties in there
> > would go away.  We return to userspace with a kernel lock held??
> 
> Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect?  At 
> least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules.  :)

I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this
mutex problem would simply go away.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/