[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180403091333.GZ4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:13:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+d1fe9b7b917f2715c7d4@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: general protection fault in try_to_wake_up
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:50:03AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> raw_spin_lock() succeeded here. Therefore lockdep was still working
> at this stage.
What does the success of raw_spin_lock() have to do with lockdep ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists