lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 3.1-rc9
Thomas pointed me here.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:32:46AM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> [104661.244767]
> [104661.244767] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [104661.244767]
> [104661.244767] CPU0 CPU1
> [104661.244767] ---- ----
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767]
> [104661.244767] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [104661.244767]

Bah, I used the __print_lock_name() function to show the lock names in
the above, which leaves off the subclass number. I'll go write up a
patch that fixes that.

Thanks,

-- Steve



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-02 23:13    [W:0.217 / U:57.104 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site