On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 09:23 +0100, John Kacur wrote: > >> Steve - I'm aware that this is a false positive, I discussed this with >> Peter already. Normally I don't like the idea of changing code for a >> tool, but if you see the comment that they wrote above where I put the >> unlock - it was an extraordinary thing NOT to drop the lock here, as >> slab_destroy is normally called without it. It doesn't seem like good >> form to me to hold a lock longer than you need it, and it is a simple >> solution to getting rid of the lockdep splat. (false positive, or >> false negative, depending on how you see it.) That being said, I'm not >> adverse to another solution either, but this one should work and is >> simple. > > This is a mainline issue, and it should go there. If mainline accepts > it, then fine. Otherwise, it's not going to go into -rt. > Quoting myself "Could you try the following patch to see if it gets rid of your lockdep splat? (plan to neaten it up and send it to lkml if it works for you.)" I never requested this go into -rt directly. John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
