[PATCH] spufs raises two exceptions

[Al Viro]

> No it's not, it all goes together. spufs_create_context() always
> unlocked & dropped the dentry before returning, so I assumed the
> lock had to be dropped before fsnotify.
> 
> Note that if the problem is that the lock has to be dropped before
> spu_forget(), then we should indeed move it back into the leaf functions
> and just remove all the unlock path from the top ones. It's a bit nasty
> how we drop the mutex first, then do spu_forget, then drop the dentry
> but we could go back to doing that.
> 
> What I want is consistent semantics. It's just silly to have 3 different
> stacking levels which all 3 may or may not be responsible to dropping
> the lock & dentry depending on circumstances.

Why not leave unlock/dput to the caller?  Details of deadlocks caused
by that approach, please...