Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-23 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote: > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont > > > buffer immediately. > > > > > > > Hmm.. No

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46:48PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote: > [..] > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > >

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46:17PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > Hi Byungchul, > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56P

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Byungchul, > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900,

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

2017-08-22 Thread Boqun Feng
ends on the new lock. > > > I felt this message really misleading, because the deadlock is detected at the commit time of "((complete)#2)" rather than the acquisition time of "(>bd_mutex)", so I made the following improvement. Thoughts? Regards, Boqun ---&g