On 29-11-2006 08:49, Herbert Xu wrote:
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
2.6.19-rc6 #4
-
nc/1854 just changed the
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 18:49 +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
2.6.19-rc6 #4
-
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:42:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
However I'm not quite sure yet how to teach lockdep about this. The
proposed patch will shut it up though.
As a rule I think we should never make semantic changes to shut up
lockdep.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at
From: Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:07:09 +1100
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 12:42:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
However I'm not quite sure yet how to teach lockdep about this. The
proposed patch will shut it up though.
As a rule I think we should never make
=
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
2.6.19-rc6 #4
-
nc/1854 just changed the state of lock:
(af_callback_keys + sk-sk_family#2){-.-?}, at: [c0268a7f]
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
2.6.19-rc6 #4
-
nc/1854 just changed the state of lock:
(af_callback_keys +