Re: 2.6.33.3: possible recursive locking detected

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:03:20AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:33:50PM +1000, CaT wrote:
>> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:52:50AM +0800, AmÃrico Wang wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 11:37:37AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > >> On 05/04/2010 10:03 AM, CaT wrote:
>> > >> >I'm currently running 2.6.33.3 in a KVM instance emulating a core2duo
>> > >> >on 1 cpu with virtio HDs running on top of a core2duo host running 2.6.33.3.
>> > >> >qemu-kvm version 0.12.3.
>> > >
>> > > Can you try commit 6992f5334995af474c2b58d010d08bc597f0f2fe in the latest
>> > > kernel?
>> > >
>> > 
>> > Hmm, 2.6.33 -stable has commit 846f99749ab68bbc7f75c74fec305de675b1a1bf?
>> > 
>> > Actually, these 3 commits fixed it:
>> > 
>> > 6992f5334995af474c2b58d010d08bc597f0f2fe sysfs: Use one lockdep class
>> > per sysfs ttribute.
>> > a2db6842873c8e5a70652f278d469128cb52db70 sysfs: Only take active
>> > references on attributes.
>> > e72ceb8ccac5f770b3e696e09bb673dca7024b20 sysfs: Remove sysfs_get/put_active_two
>> > 
>> > However, there are many other patches needed to amend these, so I think
>> > it's not suitable for -stable to include, perhaps a revert of
>> > 846f99749ab68bbc7f75c74fec305de675b1a1bf is better.
>> 
>> Slightly at a loss as to what to do, now. It's a virt instance so I can
>> apply patches at will but, well, clarity is good. :)
>
>Just ignore the lockdep warnings as they are bogus, or turn them off, or
>use .34-rc7, as they are resolved there.
>

How about reverting that patch for 2.6.33 stable tree?

Thanks.
--
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/