On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:23:12 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009, Matthias Reichl wrote:
> > The bug is still present in 2.6.28.5:
> >
> > =============================================
> > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> > 2.6.28.5-dbg #1
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock:
> > (&q->__queue_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8040e615>] blk_put_request+0x25/0x60
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > (&q->__queue_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8040e4fa>] blk_end_io+0x5a/0xa0
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > 1 lock held by swapper/0:
> > #0: (&q->__queue_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8040e4fa>] blk_end_io+0x5a/0xa0
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.28.5-dbg #1
> > Call Trace:
> > <IRQ> [<ffffffff8026cd07>] __lock_acquire+0x1797/0x1930
There is a patch for this but it might take some time to push it into
mainline (I hope that James will move the pending sg fixes to
scsi-fixes tree but it might be too late):
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=123436612119386&w=2
Sorry about that again.
--
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
