On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:29:26AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >>> With the patch I cann't reproduce the bug with 27-rc1 now. >>> >>> > [<c02375a6>] ? debugfs_create_file+0x46/0x210 >>> > [<c02375a6>] ? debugfs_create_file+0x46/0x210 >>> > [<c02375a6>] debugfs_create_file+0x46/0x210 >>> > [<c02377f1>] debugfs_create_dir+0x21/0x30 >>> > [<f8901f6d>] ieee80211_sta_debugfs_add+0x2d/0x150 [mac80211] >>> > [<f88eba89>] sta_info_debugfs_add_work+0x89/0x130 [mac80211] >>> > [<f890a170>] ? rate_control_pid_add_sta_debugfs+0x0/0x30 [mac80211] >> >> I wonder if there were two separate problems here. I looked into >> this with some detail yesterday and agree with Johannes that the above >> trace is on locking the parent directory's i_mutex, but I too couldn't >> see any problems with sta_info_debugfs_add_work. Other stuff could also >> modify the directory with or without rtnl_lock, but not in a way that >> to my untrained eyes would lead to deadlock. > > Yes,. I think so. It's the original bug for me, while testing I found > the mutex deadlock problem. > > But this week I will have no time to trace it. so if I have time I > will keep tracing the problem Additional info, With the mutex fix patch, in 2.6.27-rc1 I seems can not reproduce the debugfs_add bug, (maybe need more test) But with 2.6.26, the bug can be reproduced. (The mutex fix patch need not to be applied because there's no such deadlock bug) > >> >> Or is the trace just wrong? >> >> -- >> Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com >> >> > > > > -- > Regards > dave > -- Regards dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
