Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date: 2011-11-03 00:15:56
Also in:
lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2011-10-25 · Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- 2011-10-25 · Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 · Thomas Gleixner <hidden>
- 2011-10-25 · Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- 2011-10-25 · Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 · Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- 2011-10-18 · Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 · Simon Kirby <hidden>
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 17:09 -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
[ 49.032008] other info that might help us debug this: [ 49.032008] [ 49.032008] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 49.032008] [ 49.032008] CPU0 CPU1 [ 49.032008] ---- ---- [ 49.032008] lock(slock-AF_INET); [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1); [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET); [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1); [ 49.039565] [ 49.039565] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 49.039565]
Did that help? I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to see...
Yes, this looks much better than what you previously showed. The added "/1" makes a world of difference. Thanks! I'll add your "Tested-by". Seems rather strange as we didn't fix the bug you are chasing, but instead fixed the output of what the bug produced ;) -- Steve