[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)

* Barry K. Nathan <> wrote:

> On 6/4/06, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
> >reporting the first one only is necessary, because the validator cannot
> >trust a system's dependency info that it sees as incorrect. Deadlock
> >possibilities are quite rare in a kernel that is "in balance". Right now
> >we are not "in balance" yet, because the validator has only been added a
> >couple of days ago. The flurry of initial fixes will die down quickly.
> So, does that mean the plan is to annotate/tweak things in order to
> shut up *each and every* false positive in the kernel?

yes. Note that for the many reasons i outlined before they are only
"half false positives" - i.e. they are potentially dangerous constructs
and they are potentially inefficient - hence we _want to_ document them
in the code, to increase the cleanliness of the kernel. A pure "false
positive" would be a totally valid and perfect locking construct being
flagged by the lock validator.

nor do these warnings really hurt anyone. Lockdep prints info and then
shuts up - the system continues to work.

> Anyway, I tried your patch and I got this:

please try the addon patch below.


Index: linux/fs/reiser4/txnmgr.h
--- linux.orig/fs/reiser4/txnmgr.h
+++ linux/fs/reiser4/txnmgr.h
@@ -567,7 +567,7 @@ static inline void spin_unlock_txnh(txn_

- spin_unlock(&(txnh->hlock));
+ spin_unlock_non_nested(&(txnh->hlock));

#define spin_ordering_pred_txnmgr(tmgr) \
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-05 10:15    [W:0.088 / U:1.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site