[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1281986177.1926.1858.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:16:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [LOCKDEP BUG][2.6.36-rc1] xt_info_wrlock?
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:48 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 16 août 2010 à 20:36 +0200, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 14:16 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > @@ -729,8 +729,10 @@ static void get_counters(const struct
> > > xt_table_info *t,
> > > local_bh_enable();
> > > /* Processing counters from other cpus, we can let bottom half
> > > enabled,
> > > * (preemption is disabled)
> > > + * We must turn off lockdep to avoid a false positive.
> > > */
> > >
> > > + lockdep_off();
> > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > >
> > nack!
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> Care to elaborate ?
Adding lockdep_off() is just plain wrong, if you cannot describe the
locking there's a fair chance its wrong anyway.
As it stands there's only a single lockdep_off(), and that lives in NTFS
it looks like it could be annotated differently, but then, who cares
about NTFS anyway ;-)
--
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