On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:27:25AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 10-08-2007 09:06, Mariusz Kozlowski wrote:
...
> > =========================================================
> > [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> > 2.6.23-rc2-mm1 #7
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > runscript.sh/5843 just changed the state of lock:
> > (_xmit_ETHER){-+..}, at: [<c03cbe79>] dev_watchdog+0x17/0xcc
> > but this lock took another, soft-irq-unsafe lock in the past:
> > (&tp->lock){--..}
> >
> > and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> ...
> > Really no idea who to CC here ;)
>
> IMHO, this should be fixed by last changes to free_irq & request_irq.
> (Seems to be possible only with CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ?) Otherwise I can
> be CC-ed - my pleasure!
OOPS! But, since it's about inversion - not state - there should be no
connection... Anyway if this returns currently (and if _SHIRQ only) I'm
interested.
Jarek P.
-
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]
