* Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Can someone tell me whether I am correct in my thinking or not? If I > > am then I will work out how to tell the lock validator not to worry > > about it. > > I agree, this looks bogus. Ingo, could you please take a look? sure - Ian, could you try Arjan's fix below? Ingo ------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: lock validator: annotate vlan "master" device locks From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vlan devices are "masters" of normal "slave" devices and thus need their own lock key. (this will be switched to the reinit_key APIs once they are available) Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> --- net/8021q/vlan.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/net/8021q/vlan.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/net/8021q/vlan.c +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/net/8021q/vlan.c @@ -463,6 +463,8 @@ static struct net_device *register_vlan_ if (new_dev == NULL) goto out_unlock; + spin_lock_init(&dev->xmit_lock); + #ifdef VLAN_DEBUG printk(VLAN_DBG "Allocated new name -:%s:-\n", new_dev->name); #endif - : send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
