On 29/05/06, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
* Michal Piotrowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> I get this with Ingo's lockdep patch from
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/generic-irq-subsystem/
sigh, that patchset is not released yet ... it showed up in the genirq
directory accidentally. (will release it later today)
Ok. So I'll wait with reporting that
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/lockdep/2.6.17-rc4-mm3-lockdep1/lockdep-dmesg2
:)
> ====================================
> [ BUG: possible deadlock detected! ]
> ------------------------------------
at first sight this looks like a rare case of nested locking not yet
covered by the lock validator. Could you try the patch below, to
correctly express this locking construct to the lock validator?
Problem fixed. Thanks!
Btw., beyond this false positive, i dont see how the lock ordering
between ports is guaranteed - maybe there's some implicit rule that
enforces it. And the whole grp->list_lock and grp->list_mutex lock use
seems quite fragile - using list_lock in atomic contexts and list_mutex
in schedulable contexts?
Ingo
Regards,
Michal
--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
