lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Linux 3.1-rc9
From
Date
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 17:09 -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
>
> [ 49.032008] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 49.032008]
> [ 49.032008] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 49.032008]
> [ 49.032008] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 49.032008] ---- ----
> [ 49.032008] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1);
> [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1);
> [ 49.039565]
> [ 49.039565] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 49.039565]

> Did that help? I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to see...


Yes, this looks much better than what you previously showed. The added
"/1" makes a world of difference.

Thanks!

I'll add your "Tested-by". Seems rather strange as we didn't fix the bug
you are chasing, but instead fixed the output of what the bug
produced ;)

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-03 01:19    [W:0.077 / U:10.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site