[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqemV-zsM3wZKDrirNopqVoH7PbHKijFCGQK2HuSDAN+CA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:24:01 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...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 10:30 AM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
Applying Ming's patch over Alan's 2 patches from yesterday, I'm still
seeing two lockdep warnings. Full trace attached.
View attachment "tty_lockdep3.txt" of type "text/plain" (10366 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists