On 29/05/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I get this with Ingo's lockdep patch from > > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/generic-irq-subsystem/ > > sigh, that patchset is not released yet ... it showed up in the genirq > directory accidentally. (will release it later today) Ok. So I'll wait with reporting that http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/lockdep/2.6.17-rc4-mm3-lockdep1/lockdep-dmesg2 :) > > > ==================================== > > [ BUG: possible deadlock detected! ] > > ------------------------------------ > > at first sight this looks like a rare case of nested locking not yet > covered by the lock validator. Could you try the patch below, to > correctly express this locking construct to the lock validator? Problem fixed. Thanks! > > Btw., beyond this false positive, i dont see how the lock ordering > between ports is guaranteed - maybe there's some implicit rule that > enforces it. And the whole grp->list_lock and grp->list_mutex lock use > seems quite fragile - using list_lock in atomic contexts and list_mutex > in schedulable contexts? > > Ingo > Regards, Michal -- Michal K. K. Piotrowski LTG - Linux Testers Group (http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/) _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
