-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 1 May 2012 17:22:20 -0400
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm still seeing this lockdep pop with -rc5 kernel. I thought Pavel had
> fixed this, but maybe his patch hasn't been merged yet? Or am I
> mistaken? In any case, it looks like it just needs some lockdep
> annotation and we probably want this fixed before 3.4 ships...
>
> [ 55.218753] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> [ 55.219396] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
> [ 55.219396] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> [ 55.219396] Pid: 855, comm: mount.cifs Not tainted 3.4.0-rc5+ #15
> [ 55.219396] Call Trace:
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff810cd7b6>] __lock_acquire+0x1306/0x1ad0
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff810ccbe3>] ? __lock_acquire+0x733/0x1ad0
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff810cf2ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff8132ff8d>] ? pointer.isra.11+0x1fd/0x2d0
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff810ce661>] lock_acquire+0xa1/0x1f0
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00f96fe>] ? cifs_set_credits+0x2e/0x70 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00e8ca0>] ? cifs_get_smb_ses+0x160/0x4c0 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff816ad646>] _raw_spin_lock+0x46/0x80
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00f96fe>] ? cifs_set_credits+0x2e/0x70 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff816aa323>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x2c3/0x390
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00f96fe>] cifs_set_credits+0x2e/0x70 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00e88ad>] cifs_negotiate_protocol+0x4d/0xe0 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00e8cab>] cifs_get_smb_ses+0x16b/0x4c0 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00e9099>] cifs_mount+0x99/0x6f0 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffffa00d6efc>] cifs_do_mount+0xac/0x4d0 [cifs]
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff811c28b3>] mount_fs+0x43/0x1b0
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff811df38f>] vfs_kern_mount+0x6f/0x100
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff811dff14>] do_kern_mount+0x54/0x110
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff811e177a>] do_mount+0x26a/0x840
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff81155324>] ? __get_free_pages+0x14/0x50
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff811e137a>] ? copy_mount_options+0x3a/0x180
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff811e1e8d>] sys_mount+0x8d/0xe0
> [ 55.219396] [<ffffffff816b6f29>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
Ok, I think I've found the problem. The req_lock wasn't being
initialized (ouch). I've just sent a patch that I think is pretty
obvious.
Steve, that should be pushed to Linus ASAP...
Cheers,
- --
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)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=VKar
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ÿôèº{.nÇ+?·?®??+%?Ëÿ±éݶ¥?wÿº{.nÇ+?·¥?{±ýÈ?³ø§¶?¡Ü¨}©?²Æ zÚ&j:+v?¨þø ¯ù ®w¥þ?à2?Þ?¨èÚ&¢)ß¡«a¶Úÿÿûàz¿äz¹Þ?ú+?ù???Ý¢jÿ?wèþf
