From fcc8abc8d4fcdbddc383091449f3696b411aa8fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Teigland Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:31:23 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [DLM] move kmap to after spin_unlock Doing the kmap() while holding the spinlock was causing recursive spinlock problems. It seems the kmap was scheduling, although there was no warning as I'd expect. Patrick, do we need locking around the kmap? Signed-off-by: David Teigland Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse --- fs/dlm/lowcomms.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c index 7ab40422ab57..23f5ce12080b 100644 --- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c +++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c @@ -934,11 +934,11 @@ static int send_to_sock(struct nodeinfo *ni) break; e = list_entry(ni->writequeue.next, struct writequeue_entry, list); - kmap(e->page); len = e->len; offset = e->offset; BUG_ON(len == 0 && e->users == 0); spin_unlock(&ni->writequeue_lock); + kmap(e->page); ret = 0; if (len) { -- 2.39.5