From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932839AbWFVH5n (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:57:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932838AbWFVH5n (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:57:43 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:5012 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932835AbWFVH5m (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:57:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:57:36 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Brown, Len" Cc: michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, arjan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com Subject: Re: 2.6.17-mm1 - possible recursive locking detected Message-Id: <20060622005736.1124f8b8.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:51:51 -0400 "Brown, Len" wrote: > > >> The key thing here is that our recent changes in > >> how the locks are _used_ is okay -- and I think it is. > > > >Well. We don't know that. We just know that this report of unokayness > >wasn't right. With Ingo's Linux-only patch we're in a > >position to verify > >that the locking is probably OK. > > If this were really recursive, my machine would have deadlocked > instead of booting normally like it did, no? yup. If it's SMP ;)