[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111102221023.GA27457@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:10:23 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
Thomas pointed me here.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:32:46AM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> [104661.244767]
> [104661.244767] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [104661.244767]
> [104661.244767] CPU0 CPU1
> [104661.244767] ---- ----
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767]
> [104661.244767] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [104661.244767]
Bah, I used the __print_lock_name() function to show the lock names in
the above, which leaves off the subclass number. I'll go write up a
patch that fixes that.
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
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