* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:24:27 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > temporary workaround for the lock validator: make all uses of
> > sk_callback_lock softirq-safe. (The real solution will be to express
> > to the lock validator that sk_callback_lock rules are to be
> > generated per-address-family.)
>
> Ditto. What's the actual problem being worked around here, and how's
> the real fix shaping up?
this patch should be moot meanwhile. Earlier versions of the lock
validator produced false positives for certain read-locking constructs.
i have undone the patch:
lock-validator-sk_callback_lock-workaround.patch
and there doesnt seem to be any false positives popping up. Please dont
remove it from -mm yet, i'll test this some more and will do the removal
in the lock validator queue refactoring, ok?
Ingo
-
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]
