On 03/19/2014 06:00 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 19-03-14 11:08:08, Jane Li wrote:
>> On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800 wrote:
> Umm, I disagree with the patch. What I proposed in my answer to your patch
> is something like the patch below.
On 03/19/2014 06:00 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 19-03-14 11:08:08, Jane Li wrote:
On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800j...@marvell.com wrote:
Umm, I disagree with the patch. What I proposed in my answer to your patch
is something like the patch
On Wed 19-03-14 11:08:08, Jane Li wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800 wrote:
> >
> >>From: Jane Li
> >>
> >>This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
> >>dependency.
> >>
> >>If do in following sequence:
> >>
On Wed 19-03-14 11:08:08, Jane Li wrote:
On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800j...@marvell.com wrote:
From: Jane Lij...@marvell.com
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800 wrote:
From: Jane Li
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
enter suspend -> resume -> plug-out CPUx (echo 0 > cpux/online)
lockdep
On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800j...@marvell.com wrote:
From: Jane Lij...@marvell.com
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
enter suspend - resume - plug-out CPUx
On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
There are three locks involved in two sequence:
a) pm suspend:
console_lock (@suspend_console())
cpu_add_remove_lock (@disable_nonboot_cpus())
cpu_hotplug.lock (@_cpu_down())
But but but. suspend_console() releases
On Tue 11-02-14 13:19:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800 wrote:
>
> > From: Jane Li
> >
> > This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
> > dependency.
> >
> > If do in following sequence:
> > enter suspend -> resume -> plug-out CPUx
On Tue 11-02-14 13:19:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800 j...@marvell.com wrote:
From: Jane Li j...@marvell.com
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
enter suspend - resume -
On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
There are three locks involved in two sequence:
a) pm suspend:
console_lock (@suspend_console())
cpu_add_remove_lock (@disable_nonboot_cpus())
cpu_hotplug.lock (@_cpu_down())
But but but. suspend_console() releases
Aside: I've suggested this fix (but was too lazy to write the actual
patch), hence also my sob on it.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -1893,6 +1893,20 @@ void resume_console(void)
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + *
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800 wrote:
> From: Jane Li
>
> This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
> dependency.
>
> If do in following sequence:
> enter suspend -> resume -> plug-out CPUx (echo 0 > cpux/online)
> lockdep will show warning as following:
>
>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:50 PM, wrote:
> From: Jane Li
>
> This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
> dependency.
>
> If do in following sequence:
> enter suspend -> resume -> plug-out CPUx (echo 0 > cpux/online)
> lockdep will show warning as following:
>
>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:50 PM, j...@marvell.com wrote:
From: Jane Li j...@marvell.com
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
enter suspend - resume - plug-out CPUx (echo 0 cpux/online)
lockdep will show warning
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800 j...@marvell.com wrote:
From: Jane Li j...@marvell.com
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
enter suspend - resume - plug-out CPUx (echo 0 cpux/online)
lockdep will show
Aside: I've suggested this fix (but was too lazy to write the actual
patch), hence also my sob on it.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -1893,6 +1893,20 @@ void resume_console(void)
}
From: Jane Li
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
enter suspend -> resume -> plug-out CPUx (echo 0 > cpux/online)
lockdep will show warning as following:
==
[ INFO:
From: Jane Li j...@marvell.com
This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
dependency.
If do in following sequence:
enter suspend - resume - plug-out CPUx (echo 0 cpux/online)
lockdep will show warning as following:
18 matches
Mail list logo
