[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yrqb47ozk5IWTnWp@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 08:12:51 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "yangx.jy@...itsu.com" <yangx.jy@...itsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [bug report from blktests nvme/032] WARNING: possible circular
locking dependency detected
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:09:57PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:03:55AM +0000, yangx.jy@...itsu.com wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Running blktests nvme/032 on kernel v5.19-rc2+ which enables
> > > CONFIG_LOCKDEP and CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING triggered the below WARNING.
> >
> > What was happening when this trace was created? It looks like you were
> > manually removing a PCI device from the system through sysfs? Why would
> > blktests do that?
>
> To test how the block layer copes with the fact that the underlying
> device goes away.
Ah, so it's a fake PCI device, or is it a real one?
Anyway, it's a valid thing to do, I'll look at the report in a bit...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists