On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 09:24 -0400, nick wrote: > > On 2016-08-31 03:54 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:12PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote: > > > This fixes a issue in the current locking logic of the function, > > > __delete_object where we are trying to attempt to lock the passed > > > object structure's spinlock again after being previously held > > > elsewhere by the kmemleak code. Fix this by instead of assuming > > > we are the only one contending for the object's lock their are > > > possible other users and create two branches, one where we get > > > the lock when calling spin_trylock_irqsave on the object's lock > > > and the other when the lock is held else where by kmemleak. > > > > Have you actually got a deadlock that requires this fix? > > > Yes I have got a deadlock that this does fix. Why don't you share the backtrace with us? Claiming you have a deadlock, but not sharing it on the list means nobody can see what the problem is you are trying to address. It would be good if every email with a patch that you post starts with an actual detailed problem description. Can you do that? -- All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part