Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:10:23 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 |
| |
Thomas pointed me here.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:32:46AM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote: > [104661.244767] > [104661.244767] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [104661.244767] > [104661.244767] CPU0 CPU1 > [104661.244767] ---- ---- > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] > [104661.244767] *** DEADLOCK *** > [104661.244767]
Bah, I used the __print_lock_name() function to show the lock names in the above, which leaves off the subclass number. I'll go write up a patch that fixes that.
Thanks,
-- Steve
| |