![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 13:22 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:56:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > .... > > > I bet the net code is wrong and we missed it ;) > > It looks like you are natural born winner! Congratulations! > > > How about this: > > > > <irqs disabled> > > > > netpoll_poll() > > poll_napi() > > spin_trylock(&napi->poll_lock) > > poll_one_napi() > > napi->poll() := sky2_poll() > > napi_complete() > > local_irq_disable() > > local_irq_enable() <--- *BUG* > > Yes! I missed it's unconditional here... Great catch! > > On the other hand, still a question why lockdep doesn't see this > every day? My guess is that it is a race between polling the device and irq pushing the packet. That is, normally the IRQ handler wins and netpoll doesn't have anything to do and it doesn't traverse this code path. (although I must admit to being a little out of my depth here) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-27 12:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||