Re: 2.6.34-rc1: rcu lockdep bug?
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon Mar 15 2010 - 06:04:33 EST
Le lundi 15 mars 2010 Ã 17:39 +0800, AmÃrico Wang a Ãcrit :
>
> Ok, I think I found what lockdep really complains about, it is that we took
> spin_lock in netpoll_poll_lock() which is in hardirq-enabled environment,
> later, we took another spin_lock with spin_lock_irqsave() in netpoll_rx(),
> so lockdep thought we broke the locking rule.
>
> I don't know why netpoll_rx() needs irq disabled, it looks like that no one
> takes rx_lock in hardirq context. So can we use spin_lock(&rx_lock)
> instead? Or am I missing something here? Eric? David?
I am a bit lost.
Could you give the complete picture, because I cannot find it in my
netdev archives.
--
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/