On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:33:26 PDT, Andrew Morton said: > Why does the locking validator complain about unlocking ordering? Presumably, if the lock nesting *should* be "take A, take B, release B, release A", if it sees "Take A, Take B, release A" it means there's potentially a missing 'release B' that got forgotten (most likely an error case that does a 'return;' instead of a 'goto end_of_function_cleanup' like we usually code. Having said that, I'm not sure it qualifies as a "BUG". Certainly would qualify for a "SMELLS_FISHY" though. But we don't have one of those handy, so maybe BUG is as good as it gets (given that the person who built the kernel *asked* to be nagged about locking funkyness)....
Attachment:
pgpfOam8GJ4Fp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
- References:
- 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
- From: "Barry K. Nathan" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
- Prev by Date: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Twofish cipher - x86_64 assembler
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
- Index(es):
 |