[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1341409527.2583.1986.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:45:27 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Alexander Smirnov <alex.bluesman.smirnov@...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
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 17:38 +0400, Alexander Smirnov wrote:
> 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 can combine patch
> >
> > You should validate this code with LOCKDEP
>
> Nothing was shown by LOCKDEP for 6lowpan. :-(
>
Because path was not hit ( fragment expire )
You would have to simulate a drop or something to trigger the lockdep
splat, when lowpan_fragment_timer_expired() fires.
> 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
>
Just use the spin_lock_bh() variant to disable BH, so that timer doesnt
deadlock with you.
--
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