On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:47:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 07:40:00 +0200
After initializing dev-_xmit_lock register_netdevice()
sets lockdep class according to dev-type.
Idea of this patch - by David Miller.
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:17:32 +0200
BTW - I think some patch on vlan cannot do any harm (at
least like this previous of mine - with only ppp
considered), and maybe this all could be forgotten.
Let's wait to see if any new messages show up.
I think
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:17:51PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:17:32 +0200
BTW - I think some patch on vlan cannot do any harm (at
least like this previous of mine - with only ppp
considered), and maybe this all could be
: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:31 AM
Subject: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch
04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200
After
: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:31 AM
Subject: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch
04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200
After
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:49:47PM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote:
I've patched 2.6.22-rc1 and there was no warnings from lock debugger.
Jura
Many thanks, Jura!
It seems reality is sometimes merciful...
On the other hand I wonder, how all this could stay so long:
a configuration similar
Sorry - I've fogotten about something very important!
(Plus a small change in the diff.)
Jarek P.
--- (take 2)
After initializing dev-_xmit_lock register_netdevice()
sets lockdep class according to dev-type.
Idea of this patch - by David Miller.
Reported tested by: Yuriy N. Shkandybin [EMAIL
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:49:47PM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote:
I've patched 2.6.22-rc1 and there was no warnings from lock debugger.
So, you mean only this one patch - without previous vlan patch?
Very interesting...
Thanks once more,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 07:40:00 +0200
After initializing dev-_xmit_lock register_netdevice()
sets lockdep class according to dev-type.
Idea of this patch - by David Miller.
Reported tested by: Yuriy N. Shkandybin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:12:25PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:57:19 -0400
applied
I was under the impression that this patch didn't
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200
After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next
lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is
not enough, this patch could be dumped. But now I changed my
mind: there are really many
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200
After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next
lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is
not enough, this patch
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
...
For each unique netdev type, use a different locking class.
That will fix this forever, anything else is a situation specific
band-aid (but then again isn't
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:28:45 +0200
Yes, this is very good idea, and I wonder, why you didn't try
this yourself (after my ignore).
Because you are a skilled programmer and you might find some
flaw in my suggestion :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:18:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:28:45 +0200
Yes, this is very good idea, and I wonder, why you didn't try
this yourself (after my ignore).
Because you are a skilled programmer and you might
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:08:29AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
...
For each unique netdev type, use a different locking class.
That will fix this forever,
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200
After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next
lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is
not enough, this patch
applied
-
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
From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:57:19 -0400
applied
I was under the impression that this patch didn't actually fix the
problem yet? I might be thinking about something else...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a
On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:57:19 -0400
applied
I was under the impression that this patch didn't actually fix the
problem yet? I might be thinking about something else...
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.21-rc4 #1
---
pppd/8926 is trying to acquire lock:
21 matches
Mail list logo
