[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181213021926.GC4860@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:19:26 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>, lkp@...org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [tty] c96cf923a9:
WARNING:possible_circular_locking_dependency_detected
On (12/12/18 14:54), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > In this particular case we probably can just move free_page()
> > out of uart_port lock scope. Note that free_page()->MM can printk()
> > on its own.
> >
> >
> > Something like this (not tested):
>
> Looks good to me.
> Probably, it's worth to update comment about freeing just to make sure
> no one will "refactor"/"simplify" it some day.
>
> Does it make sense to add this to your patch?
Makes perfect sense, thanks! I'll send a patch a bit later.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists