> which has always been considered safe, while not very pretty.
actually it's different I think (based on a brief inspection of the
code, I could well be wrong):
get_request_wait() causes a get_request() call with a GFP_NOIO gfp_mask
which perculates upto cfq_set_request() as argument.
cfq_set_request() then calls the inline cfq_get_queue() (which isn't in
the backtrace due to inlining) which does
} else if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) {
/*
* Inform the allocator of the fact that we will
* just repeat this allocation if it fails, to allow
* the allocator to do whatever it needs to attempt to
* free memory.
*/
spin_unlock_irq(cfqd->queue->queue_lock);
which enables interrupts right smack in the middle of holding a whole
bunch of locks.....
so to me it looks like lockdep at least has the appearance of moaning
about a reasonably fishy situation...
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
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]
