[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)
Ingo Molnar wrote:

>* 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?
Ingo is very much in the right here. Things like locking are very hard
to debug, and require serious methodology. It is worth the hassle. I
hope we do more things like this in the future.
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: 2006-06-09 23:41    [W:0.150 / U:1.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site