[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002071712.CBC51501.SFFtLOMOQVJHFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:12:14 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: gregkh@...e.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: taviso@...gle.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, jdike@...toit.com, jln@...gle.com,
mpm@...enic.com
Subject: Re: [2.6.33-rc5] tty: possible irq lock inversion dependency intty_fasync
Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 10:46:01PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah. I think we need to just revert that commit.
> > >
> > > Or maybe we could just do the following, rather than revert it outright:
> > > just get a ref to the 'struct pid' while holding the spinlock, and then
> > > releasing it after doing the __f_setown() call.
> >
> > Btw, if we do this, then we should probably revert commit
> > b04da8bfdfbbd79544cab2fadfdc12e87eb01600 at the same time.
> >
> > Resulting patch would then look like the appended.
>
> The patch looks correct to me, thanks for fixing this.
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
>
> Can you commit it to your tree, or do you need/want me to submit it?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
That patch solved the lockdep warning.
Thank you.
--
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