Hello,
On (03/03/14 07:30), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> I'm not in office now and I would be off in this week, maybe
> so I don't have source code on top of Sergey's recent change
> but it seems below code has same problem.
>
> Pz, Sergey or Jerome Could you confirm it instead of me?
Hello,
On (03/03/14 07:30), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hello Andrew,
I'm not in office now and I would be off in this week, maybe
so I don't have source code on top of Sergey's recent change
but it seems below code has same problem.
Pz, Sergey or Jerome Could you confirm it instead of me?
On
Hello Andrew,
I'm not in office now and I would be off in this week, maybe
so I don't have source code on top of Sergey's recent change
but it seems below code has same problem.
Pz, Sergey or Jerome Could you confirm it instead of me?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:32:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton
Hello Andrew,
I'm not in office now and I would be off in this week, maybe
so I don't have source code on top of Sergey's recent change
but it seems below code has same problem.
Pz, Sergey or Jerome Could you confirm it instead of me?
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:32:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton
On (02/28/14 16:32), Andrew Morton wrote:
> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:32:06 -0800
> From: Andrew Morton
> To: Minchan Kim
> Cc: Sasha Levin , ngu...@vflare.org, LKML
> , Sergey Senozhatsky
>
> Subject: Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock
> X-Mailer: Sylphe
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram-init_lock
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:56:29 +0900 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
Sasha reported following below lockdep spew of zram.
It was introduced by [1
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:56:29 +0900 Minchan Kim wrote:
> Sasha reported following below lockdep spew of zram.
>
> It was introduced by [1] in recent linux-next but it's false positive
> because zram_meta_alloc with down_write(init_lock) couldn't be called
> during zram is working as swap device
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:56:29 +0900 Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
Sasha reported following below lockdep spew of zram.
It was introduced by [1] in recent linux-next but it's false positive
because zram_meta_alloc with down_write(init_lock) couldn't be called
during zram is working as
562569f46ae460763 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Minchan Kim
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:39:21 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] zram: prevent lockdep spew of init_lock
Sasha reported following below lockdep spew of zram.
It was introduced by [1] in recent linux-next but it's false positive
because zram_me
Hi all,
I've stumbled on the following spew while fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running
latest -next. It looks like a false positive (we only set size for uninitialized devices, so we
can't deadlock on them being in-use) but I'd really like someone to confirm it before I write
Hi all,
I've stumbled on the following spew while fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running
latest -next. It looks like a false positive (we only set size for uninitialized devices, so we
can't deadlock on them being in-use) but I'd really like someone to confirm it before I write
From: Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:39:21 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] zram: prevent lockdep spew of init_lock
Sasha reported following below lockdep spew of zram.
It was introduced by [1] in recent linux-next but it's false positive
because zram_meta_alloc with down_write
12 matches
Mail list logo
