On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16400 > Subject : 2.6.35-rc5 inconsistent lock state > Submitter : Martin Pirker <lkml.collector@xxxxxxxxx> > Date : 2010-07-14 20:33 (19 days old) > Message-ID : <AANLkTikDF0TL6OyPVCzPlUTwxFehcrETn3ysgSSeTq92@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127913961025267&w=2 This has a proposed patch. I don't know what the status of it is, though. Jens? http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127950018204029&w=2 > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16393 > Subject : kernel BUG at fs/block_dev.c:765! > Submitter : Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date : 2010-07-14 13:52 (19 days old) > Message-ID : <20100714135217.GA1797@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127911564213748&w=2 This one is interesting. And I think I perhaps see where it's coming from. bd_start_claiming() (through bd_prepare_to_claim()) has two separate success cases: either there was no holder (bd_claiming is NULL) or the new holder was already claiming it (bd_claiming == holder). Note in particular the case of the holder _already_ holding it. What happens is: - bd_start_claiming() succeeds because we had _already_ claimed it with the same holder - then some error happens, and we call bd_abort_claiming(), which does whole->bd_claiming = NULL; - the original holder thinks it still holds the bd, but it has been released! - a new claimer comes in, and succeeds because bd_claiming is now NULL. - we now have two "owners" of the bd, but bd_claiming only points to the second one. I think bd_start_claiming() needs to do some kind of refcount for the nested holder case, and bd_abort_claiming() needs to decrement the refcount and only clear the bd_claiming field when it goes down to zero. I dunno. Maybe there's something else going on, but it does look suspicious, and the above would explain the BUG_ON(). Tejun, Jens? > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16369 > Subject : Yet another 2.6.35 regression (AGP)? > Submitter : Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@xxxxxxxxx> > Date : 2010-07-09 14:21 (24 days old) > Message-ID : <4C373084.8000503@xxxxxxxxx> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127868797119254&w=2 Should hopefully be fixed by commit e7b96f28c58c ("agp/intel: Use the correct mask to detect i830 aperture size.") > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16365 > Subject : kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1353 > Submitter : Johannes Hirte <johannes.hirte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date : 2010-07-08 14:27 (25 days old) > Message-ID : <201007081627.24654.johannes.hirte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127859960725931&w=2 This one is reportedly fixed by commit 83ba7b071f30 ("writeback: simplify the write back thread queue") > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16215 > Subject : sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/class/net/bnep0' > Submitter : Janusz Krzysztofik <jkrzyszt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date : 2010-06-15 14:55 (48 days old) > Handled-By : Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Fixed by commit 24b1442d01ae155ea716dfb94ed21605541c317d. Linus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
