[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJmB2rAdDvpGhEDzBQddJBi5fJ55McN8uJEzLQiF_froR4hxVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:38:49 +0400
From: Alexander Smirnov <alex.bluesman.smirnov@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dbaryshkov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ieee802154: sparse warnings: make symbols static
Hi Eric,
just a several questions:
>> >
>> > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(flist_lock);
>>
>>
>> and of course commit 768f7c7c121e80f4 (6lowpan: add missing
>> spin_lock_init() ) must be reverted.
Do I need to create 2 separate patches: one for revert and second to
initialize spinlock correctly, or I can combine these changes in one
patch?
>
> You should validate this code with LOCKDEP
Nothing was shown by LOCKDEP for 6lowpan. :-(
I've selected the following options:
-*- Spinlock and rw-lock debugging: basic checks
-*- Mutex debugging: basic checks
-*- Lock debugging: detect incorrect freeing of live locks
[*] Lock usage statistics
[*] Lock dependency engine debugging
>
> lowpan_dellink() does a spin_lock(&flist_lock);
> while same lock can be taken by lowpan_fragment_timer_expired() from
> timer irq, -> deadlock.
What would be the best way to solve this context mismatch? Can I do
something like following:
1. create some 6lowpan internal workqueue
2. replace lowpan_fragment_timer_expired() body by queue_work() with
current list_deleting routine
3. when 6lowpan is going to be deleted - I'll flush the queue and
remove all the timers and respective fragments
Alex
--
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