[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070328183814.GA5306@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:38:14 +0400
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Andreas Mohr <andi@...x01.fht-esslingen.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tty OOPS (Re: 2.6.21-rc5-mm2)
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:04:46PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> [unrelated maintainers removed, Alexey added]
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:45:24PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > just wanted to add that when analyzing the backtrace I found the comment
> > at drivers/char/vt.c/con_close() to be VERY suspicious...
> > (need to take tty_mutex to prevent concurrent thread tty access).
> > This might just be what happened here despite trying to protect against it.
>
> OK, can we assume that one of
>
> +protect-tty-drivers-list-with-tty_mutex.patch
> +tty-minor-merge-correction.patch
> +tty-in-tiocsctty-when-we-steal-a-tty-hang-it-up-fix.patch
>
> is responsible / not implemented fully?
#2 is just comment removal.
I may state the obvious, but __iget() in sysfs_drop_dentry() gets NULL
inode and you aren't failing on spin_lock one line above because of UP
without spinlock debugging.
-
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