* Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.) could you resend the final patch please? It's a candidate for .27, if it works out fine. Ingo -- 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
