On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:24:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:00:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 05:51:11PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > [ . . .] > > > > Note I just tested the patch the previous one and it looks fine now. > > > You can then safely consider the "general idea" fixes the problem :) > > > > Thank you, Frederic!!! > > And here is what I hope is the official fix. > > Could you please test it? > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > commit 9be39c445a41e458d53cf9a57d25dbfa4b74c970 > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Apr 13 18:45:51 2010 -0700 > > rcu: Make RCU lockdep check the lockdep_recursion variable > > The lockdep facility temporarily disables lockdep checking by incrementing > the current->lockdep_recursion variable. Such disabling happens in NMIs > and in other situations where lockdep might expect to recurse on itself. > This patch therefore checks current->lockdep_recursion, disabling RCU > lockdep splats when this variable is non-zero. In addition, this patch > removes the "likely()", as suggested by Lai Jiangshan. > > Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
