| To: | Simon Arlott <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [xfs-masters] Re: xfs_ilock: possible recursive locking detected |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 8 May 2007 12:32:39 +1000 |
| Cc: | Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <463E5A5D.1070509@simon.arlott.org.uk> |
| References: | <463E5A5D.1070509@simon.arlott.org.uk> |
| Reply-to: | xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 11:44:45PM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> [ 119.948000] =============================================
> [ 119.948000] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 119.948000] 2.6.21-git #185
> [ 119.948000] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 119.948000] cc1/6496 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 119.948000] (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<b025d230>]
> xfs_ilock+0x60/0xb0
> [ 119.948000]
> [ 119.948000] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 119.948000] (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<b025d230>]
> xfs_ilock+0x60/0xb0
> [ 119.948000]
Known false positive. There shoul dbe a git update for Linus in the
next couple of days that has the lockdep annotations needed to prevent
these false positives from coming up....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [xfs-masters] xfs_ilock: possible recursive locking detected, Simon Arlott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [xfs-masters] [Bug 757] New: cache_node_purge: refcount was 1, not zero, bugzilla-daemon |
| Previous by Thread: | [xfs-masters] xfs_ilock: possible recursive locking detected, Simon Arlott |
| Next by Thread: | [xfs-masters] [Bug 757] New: cache_node_purge: refcount was 1, not zero, bugzilla-daemon |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |