Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : [...] > ======================================================= > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > ------------------------------------------------------- > swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock: > (&dev->queue_lock){-+..}, at: [<c02c8c46>] dev_queue_xmit+0x56/0x290 > > but task is already holding lock: > (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}, at: [<c02c8e14>] dev_queue_xmit+0x224/0x290 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #1 (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}: > [<c012e7b6>] lock_acquire+0x76/0xa0 > [<c0336241>] _spin_lock_bh+0x31/0x40 > [<c02d25a9>] dev_activate+0x69/0x120 [...] > [<c0169957>] vfs_ioctl+0x57/0x290 > [<c0169bc9>] sys_ioctl+0x39/0x60 > [<c0102c8d>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
> > -> #0 (&dev->queue_lock){-+..}: > [<c012e7b6>] lock_acquire+0x76/0xa0 > [<c03361fc>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 > [<c02c8c46>] dev_queue_xmit+0x56/0x290 [...] > [<c01194b5>] __do_softirq+0x55/0xc0 > [<c0104b13>] do_softirq+0x63/0xd0 dev_activate takes BH disabling locks only. How could a softirq happen on the same cpu and trigger a deadlock ? -- Ueimor -- VGER BF report: U 0.500151 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html