On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 15:13 -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 2011-04-27 09:22 -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On 2011-04-21 17:25 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 03:44:03PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > > > > Just saw this on 2.6.39-rc2 after half a day or so of uptime. I've > > > > never seen it before today so it may be a regression from 2.6.38. > > > > Nothing seems have failed as a result. Please let me know if you > > > > need any more info. > > > > > > Could you try this patch. I know it may be hard to reproduce, but the > > > issue is that we are recursing down the locks in a tree/list and we > > > changed a > > > lock from being nested to being a parent. This patch tells lockdep about > > > what we did. > > > > OK, I've built 2.6.39-rc5 with this patch applied. However, it took ~5 > > days before I saw any splat with -rc4, thus it's unlikely that I'll be > > able to say for sure that it works. > > FWIW, haven't had any problems with this kernel (+ patch) during the > last two weeks.
I'm going to wrap this up and send it out as a proper patch. Can I add your "Reported-by" and "Tested-by" tags? Thanks, -- Steve _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
