Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep

On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:52 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> So I agree with you, such recursion is indeed bad. Can we forbid this?
> In that case this patch is even more perfect :)

I haven't seen it complain in a few days so that probably means such
usage is rather rare :)

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/2] workqueue lockup debugging
    • From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: can entire drivers/acorn subdirectory be removed?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: debug work related deadlocks with lockdep
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] X86: Update alignment when 4K stacks are used.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]