On 01/11/2011 01:45 PM, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Larry Finger
> <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Is there a document that explains what the meaning of these semantics?
>>
>> inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
>> kdostartupconfi/3502 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
>> (&(&list->lock)->rlock#5){?.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812995c6>]
>> skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
>> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
>
> I'm not sure about all the HC1[1]:SC0[0] etc stuff, but check out
> Documentation/lockdep-design.txt for the basics.
That one I had read.
> In this case, someone took a lock with interrupts enabled (HARDIRQ-ON-W)
> while someone else took it in a hard IRQ context (IN-HARDIRQ-W) where
> they are normally disabled. The problem of course is:
>
> cpu0:
> spin_lock(&foo);
> do some stuff protected by foo;
>
> ----> interrupt happens here
> spin_lock(&foo); /* darn, deadlock! */
> other stuff;
> spin_unlock(&foo);
> <----
>
> spin_unlock(&foo);
>
> Could be a missing _irqsave() if it's not, as Stanislaw suggested, a false
> positive.
I suspected the message meant mixed interrupts disabled/enabled, but thanks for
the confirmation.
Thanks,
Larry
--
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
