On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:04:46PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > [unrelated maintainers removed, Alexey added] > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:45:24PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > Hi, > > > > just wanted to add that when analyzing the backtrace I found the comment > > at drivers/char/vt.c/con_close() to be VERY suspicious... > > (need to take tty_mutex to prevent concurrent thread tty access). > > This might just be what happened here despite trying to protect against it. > > OK, can we assume that one of > > +protect-tty-drivers-list-with-tty_mutex.patch > +tty-minor-merge-correction.patch > +tty-in-tiocsctty-when-we-steal-a-tty-hang-it-up-fix.patch > > is responsible / not implemented fully?
#2 is just comment removal. I may state the obvious, but __iget() in sysfs_drop_dentry() gets NULL inode and you aren't failing on spin_lock one line above because of UP without spinlock debugging. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
