>
> In the first call chain, do_open -> pkt_open, the bd_mutex object that
> is being locked corresponds to a pktcdvd block device, because those
> are the only devices that have their open method set to pkt_open.
>
> In the second call chain, pkt_ctl_ioctl -> pkt_new_dev -> do_open, the
> bd_mutex object that is being locked *does not* correspond to a
> pktcdvd block device, because pkt_new_dev will bail out with a "Can't
> chain pktcdvd devices" error if you call it with "dev" set to a
> pktcdvd device.
>
> Therefore, there is no AB-BA deadlock possibility. The locking
> dependencies are A -> B and B -> A', where it is known that A, B and
> A' are all different.
>
> So the claim from the lockdep code, "BUG: possible circular locking
> deadlock detected!", is a false alarm.
ok I'll try to find a annotation for that that works
-
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]
