Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency

[Ingo Molnar]

* Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:32:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > update: with all of Herbert's fixes i havent gotten these yet - so maybe 
> > the validator was not producing a false positive, but perhaps the 
> > inet6_destroy_sock()->sk_dst_reset() thing was causing the messages?
> 
> Maybe.  But in that case shouldn't the validator show that code-path?

yeah, it should have. In any case, things are looking good so far with 
your fixes. (Any suggestions wrt. how to trigger as many different 
codepaths in the networking code as possible, to increase coverage of 
locking scenarios mapped? I've tried LTP so far, and a few ad-hoc tests.  
Perhaps there's some IP protocol tester i should try, which is known to 
trigger lots of boundary conditions?)

	Ingo
-
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/