[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090805071411.GA9217@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:14:11 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT]: Networking
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> FYI, -tip testing found that these bits trigger a missing lockdep
> annotation warning:
it's apparently using an zero-initialized spinlock. This is a
side-effect of:
dev_unicast_init(dev);
in alloc_netdev_mq() making use of dev->addr_list_lock.
Wouldnt the patch below be the right fix? The device has just been
allocated freshly, it's not accessible anywhere yet so no locking is
needed at all - in fact it's wrong to lock it here (the lock isnt
initialized yet).
This bug was apparently introduced via:
| commit a6ac65db2329e7685299666f5f7b6093c7b0f3a0
| Author: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
| Date: Thu Jul 30 01:06:12 2009 +0000
|
| net: restore the original spinlock to protect unicast list
it needlessly added new locking and apparently nobody ran this patch
with lockdep.
Ingo
Index: linux2/net/core/dev.c
===================================================================
--- linux2.orig/net/core/dev.c
+++ linux2/net/core/dev.c
@@ -4007,9 +4007,7 @@ static void dev_unicast_flush(struct net
static void dev_unicast_init(struct net_device *dev)
{
- netif_addr_lock_bh(dev);
__hw_addr_init(&dev->uc);
- netif_addr_unlock_bh(dev);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists