From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hugh Dickins Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:34:44 +0000 Subject: Re: tty, vt: lockdep warnings Message-Id: List-Id: References: <50899507.1040900@oracle.com> <20121026143754.50277bd8@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121105175937.26f31d2a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <5097FEA9.2090603@oracle.com> <20121105201507.79fe47d7@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20121105201507.79fe47d7@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alan Cox Cc: Sasha Levin , Daniel Vetter , Sasha Levin , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, florianSchandinat@gmx.de On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Alan Cox wrote: > > The fbdev potential for deadlock may be years old, but the warning > > (and consequent disabling of lockdep from that point on - making it > > useless to everybody else in need of it) is new, and comes from the > > commit below in linux-next. > > > > I revert it in my own testing: if there is no quick fix to the > > fbdev issue on the way, Daniel, please revert it from your tree. > > If you revert it you swap it for a different deadlock - and one that > happens more often I would expect. Not very useful. But a deadlock we have lived with for years. Without reverting, we're prevented from discovering all the new deadlocks we're adding. > > I'm hoping the framebuffer maintainer will bother to respond to this > because that's the only way it can be sorted out. That would be ideal - thanks. Hugh