Re: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected (blkdev_open)

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:30:34AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
 > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 07:57:31 +0200
 > Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@sf-tec.de> wrote:
 > 
 > > =============================================
 > > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
 > > ---------------------------------------------
 > 
 > kernel version?
 
This question comes up time after time when we get lockdep reports.
Lets do the same thing we do for oopses - print out the version in the report.
It's an extra line of output though.  We could tack it on the end of the
INFO: lines, but that screws up Ingo's pretty output.

Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>


--- linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c~	2006-08-09 13:53:49.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c	2006-08-09 13:53:59.000000000 -0400
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
 #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
 #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
 #include <linux/irqflags.h>
+#include <linux/utsname.h>
 
 #include <asm/sections.h>
@@ -524,6 +524,9 @@ print_circular_bug_header(struct lock_li
 
 	printk("\n=======================================================\n");
 	printk(  "[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]\n");
+	printk(  "%s %.*s\n", system_utsname.release,
+		(int)strcspn(system_utsname.version, " "),
+		system_utsname.version);
 	printk(  "-------------------------------------------------------\n");
 	printk("%s/%d is trying to acquire lock:\n",
 		curr->comm, curr->pid);
@@ -705,6 +708,9 @@ print_bad_irq_dependency(struct task_str
 	printk("\n======================================================\n");
 	printk(  "[ INFO: %s-safe -> %s-unsafe lock order detected ]\n",
 		irqclass, irqclass);
+	printk(  "%s %.*s\n", system_utsname.release,
+		(int)strcspn(system_utsname.version, " "),
+		system_utsname.version);
 	printk(  "------------------------------------------------------\n");
 	printk("%s/%d [HC%u[%lu]:SC%u[%lu]:HE%u:SE%u] is trying to acquire:\n",
 		curr->comm, curr->pid,
@@ -786,6 +792,9 @@ print_deadlock_bug(struct task_struct *c
 
 	printk("\n=============================================\n");
 	printk(  "[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]\n");
+	printk(  "%s %.*s\n", system_utsname.release,
+		(int)strcspn(system_utsname.version, " "),
+		system_utsname.version);
 	printk(  "---------------------------------------------\n");
 	printk("%s/%d is trying to acquire lock:\n",
 		curr->comm, curr->pid);
@@ -1368,6 +1377,9 @@ print_irq_inversion_bug(struct task_stru
 
 	printk("\n=========================================================\n");
 	printk(  "[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]\n");
+	printk(  "%s %.*s\n", system_utsname.release,
+		(int)strcspn(system_utsname.version, " "),
+		system_utsname.version);
 	printk(  "---------------------------------------------------------\n");
 	printk("%s/%d just changed the state of lock:\n",
 		curr->comm, curr->pid);
@@ -1462,6 +1474,9 @@ print_usage_bug(struct task_struct *curr
 
 	printk("\n=================================\n");
 	printk(  "[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]\n");
+	printk(  "%s %.*s\n", system_utsname.release,
+		(int)strcspn(system_utsname.version, " "),
+		system_utsname.version);
 	printk(  "---------------------------------\n");
 
 	printk("inconsistent {%s} -> {%s} usage.\n",

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/