[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m11vhw6u3k.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:32:31 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.33-rc3 -- INFO: possible recursive locking -- (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d2941>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> On 01/11/2010 11:26 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:13:35 -0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] sysfs: Add support for lockdep subclasses to s_active
>>
>> We have apparently valid cases where the code for a sysfs attribute
>> removes other sysfs attributes. Without support for subclasses
>> lockdep flags a possible recursive lock problem as it figures
>> the first sysfs attribute could be attempting to remove itself.
>>
>> By adding support for sysfs subclasses we can teach lockdep to
>> distinguish between different types of sysfs attributes and not
>> get confused.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Now if I can just get a Tested-by this patch will be all set ;)
Eric
--
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