* Herbert Xu [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 01:38:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

hm, even with the revert i got the splat below. So some other commits are 
causing this too?

Indeed, there is more :)

quoted

stack backtrace:
Pid: 1435, comm: kjournald Not tainted 2.6.28-tip-03883-gf855e6c-dirty #13150
Call Trace:
 [<c015a0d6>] print_usage_bug+0x176/0x1d0
 [<c015b800>] mark_lock+0xbd0/0xd80
 [<c015da13>] __lock_acquire+0x483/0xae0
 [<c015bcdb>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
 [<c015e0f9>] lock_acquire+0x89/0xc0
 [<c034fc75>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
 [<c07247a8>] _spin_lock+0x38/0x50
 [<c034fc75>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
 [<c034fc75>] __percpu_counter_add+0x65/0xb0
 [<c060dc49>] tcp_v4_destroy_sock+0x1d9/0x240

This came from 1748376b6626acf59c24e9592ac67b3fe2a0e026 which also
has the same bug (although this particular trace is bogus and is
fixed by Peter's first patch).

I think these are the only two percpu counter patches around that
time frame.

Also watch out for 6976a1d6c222c50ac93d2273b9cf57e6fd047e59 when
reverting.

okay, since i'm not really in the business of reverting various networking 
patches, would you mind to Cc: me to the real fixes, once they are 
available? Or do you think a revert will be the approach in -git? (in 
which case i can guinea-pig the above reverts i guess)

	Ingo