Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)

Barry K. Nathan
2006-06-04T22:03:16Z

On 6/4/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> nevertheless i'll turn that warning into a less scary message.

This discussion seems to imply that I reported a false positive... is
it *known* that I reported a false positive, or is it only a strong
possibility?

Assuming it's a false positive: Since this stops the tracer, it means
that if an actual deadlock possibility is detected later [I'm assuming
that detection of those doesn't get shut down by the bad-lock-ordering
detection either], useful information could be missing from
/proc/latency_trace, if I am not mistaken. Perhaps this could impede
lockdep testing for people running reiser4 filesystems. I guess this
is just a theoretical possibility at this point, but perhaps it's
worth mentioning.
--
-Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com>