[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BUG] Probably lockdep bug Re: circular locking, mirred,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:54:48PM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Hi,
> dev->queue_lock is taken in a scenario like below: always after
> dev->ingress_lock and p->tcfc_lock, so just like on this last
> backtrace with info about held locks. But this report shows that
> lockdep for some reason forgot the history before dev->queue_lock,
> and recorded it again. It seems, even if there is something wrong
> with init lockdep shouldn't report it like this.

...Hmmm... On the other hand, despite misleading dependency chain on
this report, lockdep seems to be right: dev->queue_lock and
dev->ingress_lock are really taken in a different order from
qdisc_lock_tree() and while using act_mirred! Now I wonder why this
warning is so rare?

So, let's give a break to lockdep maintainers and linux-kernel, and
try to figure it out more in netdev...

Jarek P.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-06 10:45    [W:0.024 / U:29.968 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site