[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080327100700.GA2845@ami.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:07:00 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
marcus@...ter.se,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10326] New: inconsistent lock state in
net_rx_action
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 02:18:12AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
> Anyway, the accusation is that lockdep is busted, in that it doesn't realise that
> local_irq_disable() blocks softirqs.
Usually lockdep gets this right, so I've some doubts too. But here
it's not only about softirqs; this:
> >> Mar 25 19:48:46 better kernel: #1: (target_list_lock){--..}, at: [<c0399c0d>]
means lockdep saw hardirqs enabled while acquiring/holding this lock.
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