On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:21:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 12-03-13 06:34:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:05:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > The fix is quite simple. We can pull the key inside bus_type structure
> > > because they are defined per
On Tue 12-03-13 06:34:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:05:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The fix is quite simple. We can pull the key inside bus_type structure
> > because they are defined per device so the pointer will be unique as
> > well. bus_register doesn't
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:09:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 08:43 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > @@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct
On Tue 12-03-13 16:28:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
> > struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
> >
> > struct subsys_private *p;
> > + struct lock_class_key __key;
> > };
>
> Is struct
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 08:43 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > @@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
> > > struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
> > >
> > >
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > @@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
> > struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
> >
> > struct subsys_private *p;
> > + struct lock_class_key __key;
> > };
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
> struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
>
> struct subsys_private *p;
> + struct lock_class_key __key;
> };
Is struct bus_type constrained to static storage or can people go an
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:05:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The fix is quite simple. We can pull the key inside bus_type structure
> because they are defined per device so the pointer will be unique as
> well. bus_register doesn't need to be a macro anymore so change it
> to the inline. We
[CCing Greg and Kay]
On Tue 12-03-13 12:07:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Let's CC Ingo and Peter]
>
> On Tue 12-03-13 11:15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 12-03-13 14:36:46, Li Zefan wrote:
> > > Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
> > >
> > >
> > > [ 207.271924]
[Let's CC Ingo and Peter]
On Tue 12-03-13 11:15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 12-03-13 14:36:46, Li Zefan wrote:
> > Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
> >
> >
> > [ 207.271924] ==
> > [ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking
On Tue 12-03-13 14:36:46, Li Zefan wrote:
> Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
>
>
> [ 207.271924] ==
> [ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 207.271942] 3.9.0-rc1-0.7-default+ #34 Not tainted
> [ 207.271948]
On 2013/3/12 16:32, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
>> Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
>>
> Bogus info, perhaps.
>
No matter it's a real bug or it's false positive, we need to make
lockdep happy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
>
Bogus info, perhaps.
>
> [ 207.271924] ==
> [ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 207.271942] 3.9.0-rc1-0.7-default+ #34
Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
[ 207.271924] ==
[ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 207.271942] 3.9.0-rc1-0.7-default+ #34 Not tainted
[ 207.271948] ---
Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
[ 207.271924] ==
[ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 207.271942] 3.9.0-rc1-0.7-default+ #34 Not tainted
[ 207.271948] ---
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Li Zefan lize...@huawei.com wrote:
Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
Bogus info, perhaps.
[ 207.271924] ==
[ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 207.271942]
On 2013/3/12 16:32, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Li Zefan lize...@huawei.com wrote:
Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
Bogus info, perhaps.
No matter it's a real bug or it's false positive, we need to make
lockdep happy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue 12-03-13 14:36:46, Li Zefan wrote:
Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
[ 207.271924] ==
[ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 207.271942] 3.9.0-rc1-0.7-default+ #34 Not tainted
[ 207.271948]
[Let's CC Ingo and Peter]
On Tue 12-03-13 11:15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 12-03-13 14:36:46, Li Zefan wrote:
Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
[ 207.271924] ==
[ 207.271932] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
[CCing Greg and Kay]
On Tue 12-03-13 12:07:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
[Let's CC Ingo and Peter]
On Tue 12-03-13 11:15:55, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 12-03-13 14:36:46, Li Zefan wrote:
Seems a new bug in 3.9 kernel?
[ 207.271924]
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:05:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
The fix is quite simple. We can pull the key inside bus_type structure
because they are defined per device so the pointer will be unique as
well. bus_register doesn't need to be a macro anymore so change it
to the inline. We could
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
struct subsys_private *p;
+ struct lock_class_key __key;
};
Is struct bus_type constrained to static storage or can people go an
allocate this
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
struct subsys_private *p;
+ struct lock_class_key __key;
};
Is struct
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 08:43 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
struct
On Tue 12-03-13 16:28:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
struct iommu_ops *iommu_ops;
struct subsys_private *p;
+ struct lock_class_key __key;
};
Is struct bus_type
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:09:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 08:43 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:28:25PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 14:05 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
@@ -111,17 +111,17 @@ struct bus_type {
On Tue 12-03-13 06:34:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:05:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
The fix is quite simple. We can pull the key inside bus_type structure
because they are defined per device so the pointer will be unique as
well. bus_register doesn't need to be
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:21:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 12-03-13 06:34:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:05:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
The fix is quite simple. We can pull the key inside bus_type structure
because they are defined per device so the
28 matches
Mail list logo