On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 01:28 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> On 19.09.2006 20:52, john stultz wrote:
> > You might try git-bisect to find the offending patch.
>
> This turned out to be easier than I expected.
> The patch which introduces the problem is:
>
> [a0f1ccfd8d37457a6d8a9e01acebeefcdfcc306e] lockdep: do not recurse in printk
When you've narrow down a patch, be sure to CC the author (in this case
Ingo).
> Reverting that patch makes the problem disappear in 2.6.18, too.
> In fact, it suffices to revert just the last chunk:
>
> @@ -809,8 +815,15 @@ void release_console_sem(void)
> console_may_schedule = 0;
> up(&console_sem);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&logbuf_lock, flags);
> - if (wake_klogd && !oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait))
> - wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
> + if (wake_klogd && !oops_in_progress && waitqueue_active(&log_wait)) {
> + /*
> + * If we printk from within the lock dependency code,
> + * from within the scheduler code, then do not lock
> + * up due to self-recursion:
> + */
> + if (!lockdep_internal())
> + wake_up_interruptible(&log_wait);
> + }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(release_console_sem);
Ingo, your thoughts?
thanks
-john
-
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]
