On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Daniel J Blueman
<daniel.blueman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I tried your suggestion of promoting the lock to irq-safe, and it
>> fixed the warning for me (didn't get or look for deadlocks yet, but it
>> seems likely that it is caused by the same thing?), the patch is
>> attached for reference.
>>
>> I also don't know if this is the best fix, but I also don't have any
>> other (better) suggestions.
>>
>> Others are welcome to pick it up from here...
>
> The solution looks like is needs to get the lock ordering correct
> w.r.t. SLUB, as we get this, alas:
>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.27-rc4-229c-debug #1
Hm. Is this with my first patch + the one in the e-mail you replied
to? It was intended to be a delta patch on top of my first one.
That would be the one in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121946972307110&w=4
plus the one in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121969394110327&w=1
Thanks for testing and sorry for the confusion. (Maybe I just confused
myself. Please let me know either way.)
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
