[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080306094156.GA3954@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:41:57 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@...p.net.lb>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] Probably lockdep bug Re: circular locking, mirred,
2.6.24.2
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:54:48PM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> dev->queue_lock is taken in a scenario like below: always after
> dev->ingress_lock and p->tcfc_lock, so just like on this last
> backtrace with info about held locks. But this report shows that
> lockdep for some reason forgot the history before dev->queue_lock,
> and recorded it again. It seems, even if there is something wrong
> with init lockdep shouldn't report it like this.
...Hmmm... On the other hand, despite misleading dependency chain on
this report, lockdep seems to be right: dev->queue_lock and
dev->ingress_lock are really taken in a different order from
qdisc_lock_tree() and while using act_mirred! Now I wonder why this
warning is so rare?
So, let's give a break to lockdep maintainers and linux-kernel, and
try to figure it out more in netdev...
Jarek P.
--
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