* Al Viro [160509 08:41]:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:21:38AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > Looks like with both patches applied I still also get this eventually:
> >
> > =
> > [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> > 4.6.0-rc7-next-20160509+ #1264 Not t
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:21:38AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Looks like with both patches applied I still also get this eventually:
>
> =
> [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> 4.6.0-rc7-next-20160509+ #1264 Not tainted
>
* Tony Lindgren [160509 08:15]:
> * Eric Dumazet [160509 07:16]:
> > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 03:16:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > >> Very strange. We grab that rwsem at the entry into nfs_call_unlink()
> > >> and then either release it
* Eric Dumazet [160509 07:16]:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 03:16:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> >> Very strange. We grab that rwsem at the entry into nfs_call_unlink()
> >> and then either release it there and return or call nfs_do_call_unlink(
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 03:16:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> Very strange. We grab that rwsem at the entry into nfs_call_unlink()
>> and then either release it there and return or call nfs_do_call_unlink().
>> Which arranges for eventual call of
