Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Feb 2006 08:46:27 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency |
| |
* Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:32:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > update: with all of Herbert's fixes i havent gotten these yet - so maybe > > the validator was not producing a false positive, but perhaps the > > inet6_destroy_sock()->sk_dst_reset() thing was causing the messages? > > Maybe. But in that case shouldn't the validator show that code-path?
yeah, it should have. In any case, things are looking good so far with your fixes. (Any suggestions wrt. how to trigger as many different codepaths in the networking code as possible, to increase coverage of locking scenarios mapped? I've tried LTP so far, and a few ad-hoc tests. Perhaps there's some IP protocol tester i should try, which is known to trigger lots of boundary conditions?)
Ingo - 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/
| |