Quoting Stephan Uphoff <ups@stups.com>:

> If you want to hold two or more locks and avoid deadlocks you have to
> always
> acquire locks in a certain order =  the locking order
>  
> Locking order for vnodes is parent directory first then child second.
> 
> There is no "reasonable" way to just lock a list of random vnodes.

but ffs_sync goes through the mnt_vnodelist and locks the vnodes one after 
another.  Does this work because it always only locks 1 vnode at a time and 
would it deadlock if it would keep the vnodes locked until it finishes?

-- 
Christian Limpach <chris@pin.lu>