From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path:
References: <1448901241-30844-1-git-send-email-sw@simonwunderlich.de>
<20151219080405.GJ30160@otheros> <1831238.xY0O8bfIys@bentobox>
From: Antonio Quartulli
Message-ID: <56753ACE.1070302@unstable.cc>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:09:02 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1831238.xY0O8bfIys@bentobox>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="I2Q7F8xmjBeOafJwqOTgvPlsKiJnKfS3Q"
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH-maint] batman-adv: fix lockdep splat when
doing mcast_free
List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
Cc: Simon Wunderlich
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--I2Q7F8xmjBeOafJwqOTgvPlsKiJnKfS3Q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 19/12/15 17:32, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> On Saturday 19 December 2015 09:04:05 Linus L=FCssing wrote:
>>> From: Simon Wunderlich
>>>
>>> While testing, we got something like this:
>>>
>>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 238 at net/batman-adv/multicast.c:142 batadv_mca=
st_mla_tt_retract+0x94/0x205 [batman_adv]()
>>> [...]
>>> Call Trace:
>>> [] dump_stack+0x4b/0x64
>>> [] warn_slowpath_common+0xbc/0x120
>>> [] ? batadv_mcast_mla_tt_retract+0x94/0x205 [batman=
_adv]
>>> [] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
>>> [] batadv_mcast_mla_tt_retract+0x94/0x205 [batman_a=
dv]
>>> [] batadv_mcast_free+0x36/0x39 [batman_adv]
>>> [] batadv_mesh_free+0x7d/0x13f [batman_adv]
>>> [] batadv_softif_free+0x15/0x25 [batman_adv]
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Wunderlich
>>
>> Fixes: 5b95c427d187 ("batman-adv: Annotate deleting functions with ext=
ernal lock via lockdep")
>> Acked-by: Linus L=FCssing
>=20
> I am confused why this should fix a commit which is there to find such =
problems.
Am I wrong or also the commit message is misleading? Looks like it is
"fixing" a bogus lockdep check...but as far as I can say this patch is
making sure that the lock is held in that particular point.
If we want to "fix the lockdep" then we should remove the
lockdep_assert_held(), but I don't think this is the goal of the whole
discussion.
Cheers,
--=20
Antonio Quartulli
--I2Q7F8xmjBeOafJwqOTgvPlsKiJnKfS3Q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=I83G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--I2Q7F8xmjBeOafJwqOTgvPlsKiJnKfS3Q--