[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180417.101353.1090312853623596858.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:13:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: horms+renesas@...ge.net.au
Cc: sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, magnus.damm@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com, masaru.nagai.vx@...esas.com,
kazuya.mizuguchi.ks@...esas.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/5] ravb: fix inconsistent lock state at
enabling tx timestamp
From: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:50:26 +0200
> From: Masaru Nagai <masaru.nagai.vx@...esas.com>
>
> [ 58.490829] =================================
> [ 58.495205] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> [ 58.499583] 4.9.0-yocto-standard-00007-g2ef7caf #57 Not tainted
...
> Fixes: f51bdc236b6c ("ravb: Add dma queue interrupt support")
> Signed-off-by: Masaru Nagai <masaru.nagai.vx@...esas.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kazuya Mizuguchi <kazuya.mizuguchi.ks@...esas.com>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>
This really needs more than the lockdep dump in the commit message, explaining
what the problem is and how it was corrected.
Are the wrong interrupt types enabled? Are they handled improperly?
It definitely isn't clear from just reading the patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists