Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10326] New: inconsistent lock state innet_rx_action

From: Jarek Poplawski
Date: Thu Mar 27 2008 - 08:17:31 EST


On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:56:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 02:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
> > I bet the net code is wrong and we missed it ;)

It looks like you are natural born winner! Congratulations!

> How about this:
>
> <irqs disabled>
>
> netpoll_poll()
> poll_napi()
> spin_trylock(&napi->poll_lock)
> poll_one_napi()
> napi->poll() := sky2_poll()
> napi_complete()
> local_irq_disable()
> local_irq_enable() <--- *BUG*

Yes! I missed it's unconditional here... Great catch!

On the other hand, still a question why lockdep doesn't see this
every day?

Jarek P.
--
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/