[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131014124712.GA4722@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:47:12 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v2] sysfs: use seq_file and unify regular and bin file
handling
Hello, guys.
Sorry about the delay.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:11:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> [ 448.189960] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 448.195214] WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 69219 at fs/sysfs/file.c:79
> sysfs_file_ops+0x59/0x70()
So, that's "lockdep_assert_held(sd);" in sysfs_file_ops().
> [ 448.273805] [<ffffffff81248bd9>] sysfs_file_ops+0x59/0x70
> [ 448.279973] [<ffffffff81249628>] sysfs_open_file+0x88/0x330
Triggering from sysfs_open_file()
> [ 448.366842] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 448.372030] WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 69219 at fs/sysfs/file.c:79
> sysfs_file_ops+0x59/0x70()
...
> [ 448.457806] [<ffffffff81248cbb>] sysfs_seq_show+0xcb/0x180
and then from sysfs_seq_show(), which is weird because
lockdep_assert_held(sd) checks whether sd's active ref is held and
both do hold them. Hmm.... ah, right, I forgot about
->ignore_lockdep, we need to skip the assertion for files marked with
ignore_lockdep. Will send a patch soon.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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