Re: [Bug #15039] leds_alix2: can't allocate I/O for GPIO

Re: [Bug #15039] leds_alix2: can't allocate I/O for GPIO

[Daniel Mack]

Hi Richard,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:30:13PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> of recent regressions.
> 
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.32.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let the tracking team
> know (either way).
> 
> 
> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15039
> Subject		: leds_alix2: can't allocate I/O for GPIO
> Submitter	: Arnd Hannemann <hannemann-JasiFyN5vQG662+jY7v6MhvVK+yQ3ZXh@public.gmane.org>
> Date		: 2010-01-07 10:26 (46 days old)
> References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126286001106257&w=4
> Handled-By	: Daniel Mack <daniel-rDUAYElUppE@public.gmane.org>
> Patch		: http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/72006/
> 

This regression is fixedi (or better worked around) in your git by the
commit "leds: ALIX2: Add dependency to !GPIO_CS5335" (38b52483) but it
seems this isn't merged yet. Any plans to get this in for -rc8?

Thanks,
Daniel

Re: [Bug #15142] sysfs-related lockdep warning in __blkdev_get

[Américo Wang]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.32.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let the tracking team
> know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15142
> Subject         : sysfs-related lockdep warning in __blkdev_get
> Submitter       : Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio--kernel-bugzilla@zmailer.org>
> Date            : 2010-01-25 13:38 (28 days old)
>
>

This should be fixed by the patchset from Eric too. Here:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/11/329

Re: [Bug #15202] lockdep warning during elevator_switch

[Américo Wang]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.32.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let the tracking team
> know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15202
> Subject         : lockdep warning during elevator_switch
> Submitter       : Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
> Date            : 2010-01-31 23:55 (22 days old)
> References      : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126498212613051&w=4
>

This should be fixed by:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/11/329

Re: [Bug #15319] [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs

[Américo Wang]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.32.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let the tracking team
> know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15319
> Subject         : [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs
> Submitter       : John Kacur <jkacur-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Date            : 2010-02-11 17:11 (11 days old)
> Message-ID      : <520f0cf11002110911t3f125649v73062e9851e2cfb3-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
> References      : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126590832432598&w=2
> Handled-By      : Eric Biederman <ebiederm@aristanetworks.com>
>
>

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/11/329

Re: [Bug #15202] lockdep warning during elevator_switch

[Hugh Dickins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1244 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Américo Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.32.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let the tracking team
> > know (either way).
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15202
> > Subject         : lockdep warning during elevator_switch
> > Submitter       : Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins-IWqWACnzNjxTgsEVMPZbmg@public.gmane.orguk>
> > Date            : 2010-01-31 23:55 (22 days old)
> > References      : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126498212613051&w=4
> >
> 
> This should be fixed by:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/11/329

This regression does still need to be listed for 2.6.33-rc8-git.

Americo is right that the warning goes away if I apply those patches from Eric,
but they look like more than we'd be adding into 2.6.33 at this stage ...
and bootup of latest git plus those patches gave me 71 messages of the form
BUG: key fxxxxxxx not in .data!

Hugh

Re: [Bug #15202] lockdep warning during elevator_switch

[Eric W. Biederman]

Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins-IWqWACnzNjwqdlJmJB21zg@public.gmane.org> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Américo Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
>> > of recent regressions.
>> >
>> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>> > from 2.6.32.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let the tracking team
>> > know (either way).
>> >
>> >
>> > Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15202
>> > Subject         : lockdep warning during elevator_switch
>> > Submitter       : Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
>> > Date            : 2010-01-31 23:55 (22 days old)
>> > References      : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126498212613051&w=4
>> >
>> 
>> This should be fixed by:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/11/329
>
> This regression does still need to be listed for 2.6.33-rc8-git.
>
> Americo is right that the warning goes away if I apply those patches from Eric,
> but they look like more than we'd be adding into 2.6.33 at this stage ...
> and bootup of latest git plus those patches gave me 71 messages of the form
> BUG: key fxxxxxxx not in .data!

Which probably means one or two more spots that need annotation.

2.6.33 is out so these are targeted for 2.6.34...

Eric

[Bug #15319] [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let the tracking team know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15319
Subject		: [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs
Submitter	: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Date		: 2010-02-11 17:11 (39 days old)
Message-ID	: <520f0cf11002110911t3f125649v73062e9851e2cfb3@mail.gmail.com>
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126590832432598&w=2
Handled-By	: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@aristanetworks.com>

Re: [Bug #15319] [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs

[Eric W. Biederman]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> writes:

> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.  Please verify if it still should
> be listed and let the tracking team know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15319
> Subject		: [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs
> Submitter	: John Kacur <jkacur-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Date		: 2010-02-11 17:11 (39 days old)
> Message-ID	: <520f0cf11002110911t3f125649v73062e9851e2cfb3-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
> References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126590832432598&w=2
> Handled-By	: Eric Biederman <ebiederm-BGArkANP9klv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>

The false positives I introduced should be fixed as of 2.6.34-rc2.
If this bug still shows up in 2.6.34-rcX it indicates a real bug.

Eric

Re: [Bug #15319] [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday 26 March 2010, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.  Please verify if it still should
> > be listed and let the tracking team know (either way).
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15319
> > Subject		: [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs
> > Submitter	: John Kacur <jkacur-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > Date		: 2010-02-11 17:11 (39 days old)
> > Message-ID	: <520f0cf11002110911t3f125649v73062e9851e2cfb3-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
> > References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126590832432598&w=2
> > Handled-By	: Eric Biederman <ebiederm-BGArkANP9klv6pq1l3V1OdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
> 
> The false positives I introduced should be fixed as of 2.6.34-rc2.
> If this bug still shows up in 2.6.34-rcX it indicates a real bug.

Thanks, closed.

Rafael