Re: 2.6.34-rc1: rcu lockdep bug?

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>

Sure, sorry for this.

Here is the whole thread:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/11/100
--
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/