[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1320279351.4793.60.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:15:51 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 17:09 -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
>  
> [   49.032008] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   49.032008] 
> [   49.032008]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [   49.032008] 
> [   49.032008]        CPU0                    CPU1
> [   49.032008]        ----                    ----
> [   49.032008]   lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [   49.039565]                                lock(slock-AF_INET/1);
> [   49.039565]                                lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [   49.039565]   lock(slock-AF_INET/1);
> [   49.039565] 
> [   49.039565]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> [   49.039565] 
> Did that help? I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to see...
Yes, this looks much better than what you previously showed. The added
"/1" makes a world of difference.
Thanks!
I'll add your "Tested-by". Seems rather strange as we didn't fix the bug
you are chasing, but instead fixed the output of what the bug
produced ;)
-- Steve
--
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