Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

[Steven Rostedt]

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


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/