Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

[Steven Rostedt]

Thomas pointed me here.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:32:46AM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> [104661.244767] 
> [104661.244767]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [104661.244767]        
> [104661.244767]        CPU0                    CPU1
> [104661.244767]        ----                    ----
> [104661.244767]   lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767]                                lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767]                                lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767]   lock(slock-AF_INET);
> [104661.244767] 
> [104661.244767]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> [104661.244767] 

Bah, I used the __print_lock_name() function to show the lock names in
the above, which leaves off the subclass number. I'll go write up a
patch that fixes that.

Thanks,

-- 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/