On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 15:37 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > > [20920.458587] =======================================================
> > > [20920.458944] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > [20920.459231] 2.6.29-rc3-wl-12787-g17d9115-dirty #38
> > > [20920.459449] -------------------------------------------------------
> > > [20920.459736] events/0/9 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [20920.459951] (&dev->mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff804be0ac>] input_disconnect_device+0x2c/0xf0
> > > [20920.460369]
> > > [20920.460370] but task is already holding lock:
> > > [20920.460637] (&usbhid->reset_work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8025a933>] run_workqueue+0xb3/0x250
> > > [20920.461049]
> > > [20920.461050] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > Ping? I just ran into it again on 2.6.29-rc8-wl-18593-gef1cb6f-dirty.
>
> I haven't still fully gone through the whole dependency chain, was quite
> overloaded lately, sorry.
>
> There is a patch from Oliver Neukum, that fixes workqueue usage semantics
> around hid_reset() on [1], could you please check whether it also fixes
> the report you are seeing? Thanks.
>
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/18/39
That patch doesn't even apply against a current tree.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
