[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51386AEF.5090703@free-electrons.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:24:47 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: Peter Chen <peter.chen@...escale.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v3.9-rc1: swapper/0 [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency
detected ]
Hi Peter,
Le 07/03/2013 09:08, Peter Chen a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> [ 2.149645] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 2.149645]
>> [ 2.157667] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 2.157667]
>> [ 2.163598] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 2.168134] ---- ----
>> [ 2.172667] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2.176790] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2.183255] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2.189893] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock);
>
> The precondition of above is the chipidea interrupt can be re-entered.
> But as far as I know, the same interrupt can't be re-entered at current
> system.
Yes, it seems to work quite fine anyway, but I'm not sure simply
ignoring this would be the right answer.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
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