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
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:15:51PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> 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 ;)

Well, I was testing this without Eric's patch as I figured you wanted to
see the splat. :) Testing again with Eric's patch now.

Simon-


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-03 01:19    [W:0.066 / U:48.152 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site