On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 09:28 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: =============================================
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: 2.6.27-0.186.rc1.fc9.x86_64 #1
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: ---------------------------------------------
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: ath9k/1379 is trying to acquire lock:
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: (_xmit_IEEE80211#2){-...}, at: [<ffffffffa00f5
> c46>] ieee80211_scan_completed+0x142/0x2e2 [mac80211]
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel:
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: but task is already holding lock:
> Jul 30 08:19:39 localhost kernel: (_xmit_IEEE80211#2){-...}, at: [<ffffffffa00f5
> c46>] ieee80211_scan_completed+0x142/0x2e2 [mac80211]
I think that's the false positive due to the tx mq changes that people
were talking about all the time. Please ignore.
> Is this a known issue or perhaps due to may skb->cb patch for ath9k?
Yeah it's a known issue, nothing with your patch, except for the PAE
placement your patch is fine. And I don't understand that part of ath9k,
it shouldn't need to look at that but rather ask the RC algorithm to do
that job.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
