Re: Regression in next for smsc911x with tigthen lockdep checks

* Hannes Frederic Sowa [160420 08:24]: > Hi, > > On 20.04.2016 17:01, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for > > sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for > > smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It

Re: Regression in next for smsc911x with tigthen lockdep checks

Hi, On 20.04.2016 17:01, Tony Lindgren wrote: > Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for > sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for > smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It keeps spamming with the following > message. Any ideas? Not yet, can you quickly

Re: Regression in next for smsc911x with tigthen lockdep checks

* Tony Lindgren [160420 08:02]: > Hi, > > Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for > sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for > smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It keeps spamming with the following > message. Any ideas? Sorry forgot

Regression in next for smsc911x with tigthen lockdep checks

Hi, Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It keeps spamming with the following message. Any ideas? Regards, Tony 8< WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at