[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061030175400.GA31581@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:54:00 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Mark Lord <liml@....ca>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3-git7: scsi_device_unbusy: inconsistent lock state
* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > things may be allocated from that path, so we pass gfp_mask around. I'll
> > > double check it tonight, but I don't currently see what could be wrong.
> > > Would lockdep complain about:
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> > > ...
> > > spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> > > ...
> > > spin_lock_irq(lock);
> > > ...
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> >
> > this is fine for lockdep IF and only IF there is no "out lock" held
> > around this that requires irqs to be off. So if you do
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(lock1, flags);
> > ...
> > spin_lock_irqsave(lock2, flags);
> > spin_unlock_irq(lock2)
> > ...
> >
> > then lockdep WILL complain, and rightfully so, about a violation since
> > lock1 gets violated here ;)
>
> Naturally, that is a bug fair and simple, nothing to do with lockdep.
well, finding such locking bugs is the main purpose of lockdep, so there
is at least some connection i'd say ;-)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists