2.6.27-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: David Woodhouse commit b27cf88e9592953ae292d05324887f2f44979433 upstream The thread_should_wake() function trawls through the list of 'very dirty' eraseblocks, determining whether the background GC thread should wake. Doing this without holding the appropriate locks is a bad idea. OLPC Trac #8615 Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/jffs2/background.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) --- a/fs/jffs2/background.c +++ b/fs/jffs2/background.c @@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ static int jffs2_garbage_collect_thread( for (;;) { allow_signal(SIGHUP); again: + spin_lock(&c->erase_completion_lock); if (!jffs2_thread_should_wake(c)) { set_current_state (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); + spin_unlock(&c->erase_completion_lock); D1(printk(KERN_DEBUG "jffs2_garbage_collect_thread sleeping...\n")); - /* Yes, there's a race here; we checked jffs2_thread_should_wake() - before setting current->state to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. But it doesn't - matter - We don't care if we miss a wakeup, because the GC thread - is only an optimisation anyway. */ schedule(); - } + } else + spin_unlock(&c->erase_completion_lock); + /* This thread is purely an optimisation. But if it runs when other things could be running, it actually makes things a -- -- 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/