On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 11:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 22:15 +0200, Arne Jansen wrote: > > > > Can lockdep just get confused by the lockdep_off/on calls in printk > > while scheduling is allowed? There aren't many users of lockdep_off(). > > Yes!, in that case lock_is_held() returns false, triggering the warning. > I guess there's an argument to be made in favour of the below.. I've been testing/rebooting for a couple hours now, x3550 M3 lockup woes using Arne's config are history. All-better-by: (nah, heel sense-o-humor, _down_ i say;) > --- > kernel/lockdep.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c > index 53a6895..e4129cf 100644 > --- a/kernel/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/lockdep.c > @@ -3242,7 +3242,7 @@ int lock_is_held(struct lockdep_map *lock) > int ret = 0; > > if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion)) > - return ret; > + return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held */ > > raw_local_irq_save(flags); > check_flags(flags); > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|