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 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWdTrSAAoJENpFlCjNi1MRpS8QAIHDhwVTUKP+OBqdTUzFaPMu uVcCYY9GlQvDu5N4lI0qyMxdev39OGX32NxQslxrKRehjB6c5DEKElv/ySZCKYaS Qj7GZDiQ6DHTfnd4M5XCw0eN/jzzejpytAV1CvowgtyhvWBisA8DPF+TbzVQ+ljR iDXBKN2Z+RWC8JTmZjCeCzRUjPydBNgQAI7OXOZeHeC2x+WOoH+KtWotAKiuhoLc ZqIDlb7Q/LV+Jbd+3rzI1tjkCKcD29iqAlQRttAnjfpeD3DcOe7kxm7UK7441ZSk eaGrOXicw6huPESnb2DrZnE0iSzNkNWfcMeXI/0kbH5M+j7UQW10ATK1J3OBuHjO Xh9z/DxkBwQkJDM6cu/9Kwl9emfNSG1JziJvTV/T8dZ7VoL4AU+HqfXb2FFZPAPJ qzNHJQtawH2FsCUHAPdYvcw1T7JuaWgiQeLy+xqkMokjNTr+TcrcOWtuMiwzWaU1 8dKv6FX0e1FiYOLSQqHCLylf/ifYZ8z9uYeswt8eUSqxXQHJhFKrEdxAM0VVdhp0 3mAvzt8g1Oaiy37zjAbU0AgheWx8MroZ6FzUdG/uy40bubuEyaikQbukS9ITbImg QfmnpsH1ZXP6tGjW5rAZPBqgBAROC+JU38vNju6h99lYiS1cu/McAOgFHF5++hOt r7O213zD9BG4yikVQGOx =I83G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --I2Q7F8xmjBeOafJwqOTgvPlsKiJnKfS3Q--