On Mon, Jan 15 2018 at 12:16pm -0500, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 10:06 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > I'm submitting this v5 with more feeling now ;) > > Hello Mike, > > Have these patches been tested with lockdep enabled? The following appeared in > the kernel log when after I started testing Jens' for-next tree of this morning: So you replied to v5, I emailed a v6 out for the relevant patch. Just want to make sure you're testing with either Jens' latest tree or are using my v6 that fixed blk_mq_unregister_dev() to require caller holds q->sysfs_lock ? With the latest code that Jens merged, I do have lockdep enabled in my kernel... but haven't seen any issues on the 2 testbeds I've been hammering the changes on. Ming was concerned about the potential for a lockdep splat (said he tried expanding the scope of q->sysfs_lock in blk_unregister_queue before and in doing so got lockdep to trigger). Once you respond with what it is you're testing, and if it is latest code, I'll look closer at what you've provided and see if it is real or that lockdep just needs some training. Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
