Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751257AbWE2Tx1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 May 2006 15:53:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751261AbWE2Tx1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 May 2006 15:53:27 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.227]:2172 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751257AbWE2Tx0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 May 2006 15:53:26 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MMVepg4FelVXTpDzznapCggTrmEblmc6PgaLb8KN7P2EnpaosEiAZCCGmQlYFM0ePF8D7sOkqrceDzOE6pOsMy69AyfNjOuIf+Dh7Hb80Tb/9/KG6ZJHApHdVTU9bhXyMODtk5yeE2mVx0aSgrKALuxZ7IA1qnnPa1MXTh9b1gU= Message-ID: <6bffcb0e0605291253w627570efn2cb3b6f08ba1b39@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:53:25 +0200 From: "Michal Piotrowski" To: "Ingo Molnar" Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc4-mm3-lockdep BUG: possible deadlock detected! Cc: perex@suse.cz, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, "Andrew Morton" , LKML In-Reply-To: <20060529190707.GB24445@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <6bffcb0e0605291132u701cd69tb855cf60fa317994@mail.gmail.com> <20060529190707.GB24445@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1527 Lines: 47 On 29/05/06, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Michal Piotrowski wrote: > > > I get this with Ingo's lockdep patch from > > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/generic-irq-subsystem/ > > sigh, that patchset is not released yet ... it showed up in the genirq > directory accidentally. (will release it later today) Ok. So I'll wait with reporting that http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/lockdep/2.6.17-rc4-mm3-lockdep1/lockdep-dmesg2 :) > > > ==================================== > > [ BUG: possible deadlock detected! ] > > ------------------------------------ > > at first sight this looks like a rare case of nested locking not yet > covered by the lock validator. Could you try the patch below, to > correctly express this locking construct to the lock validator? Problem fixed. Thanks! > > Btw., beyond this false positive, i dont see how the lock ordering > between ports is guaranteed - maybe there's some implicit rule that > enforces it. And the whole grp->list_lock and grp->list_mutex lock use > seems quite fragile - using list_lock in atomic contexts and list_mutex > in schedulable contexts? > > Ingo > Regards, Michal -- Michal K. K. Piotrowski LTG - Linux Testers Group (http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/