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

[Herbert Xu]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i think this might be a false positive, caused by my (ill-advised) 
> change below? [i did the change to clean up an unlock ordering 
> assymetry, but apparently i thus also introduced the xmit_lock -> 
> queue_lock dependency.]

As far as I can see your change can't cause the previous report,
unless the validator is treating the trylock in the same way as
a normal lock operation.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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/