Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Feb 2006 23:19:29 +1100 | Subject | Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency | From | Herbert Xu <> |
| |
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i think this might be a false positive, caused by my (ill-advised) > change below? [i did the change to clean up an unlock ordering > assymetry, but apparently i thus also introduced the xmit_lock -> > queue_lock dependency.]
As far as I can see your change can't cause the previous report, unless the validator is treating the trylock in the same way as a normal lock operation.
Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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/
| |