[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVNB+=EniGofYV2eMy8m521aNbs4MJETEFEwTK7LMpK6LA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 16:30:55 +0800
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: 3.4+ tty lockdep trace
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 03:54:57PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:24:56 +0200
>>> Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > And here is the second one attached as well, so these are two
>>> > different warnings I get with the new version.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm somewhat baffled by this one. Can lockdep be fooled by an object
>>> being freed and reallocated at the same address, Is there any markup
>>> that should be present to avoid that ?
>>
>> Sasha,
>>
>> Did you apply Ming's second patch. His first patch (the one referenced
>> in the email) didn't have the unlock fixup.
>
> Nope, I just got the first one.
>
> What's the right patchset to use atm? I know about these patches from
> Ming, and I see Alan sent out two patches yesterday. Which ones should
> I use for testing?
You can try to apply my 2nd patch against Alan's two patches for the tests.
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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