From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753966Ab0F1TEh (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:04:37 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:51523 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751338Ab0F1TEg (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:04:36 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Tony Luck Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: avoid recursive BTM in pty_close Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:03:58 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.35-rc3-00069-gc502b38-dirty; KDE/4.4.85; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Alan Cox , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , John Kacur , Al Viro , Ingo Molnar References: <1273957196-13768-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201006182035.17394.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201006282103.58269.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18sPCMkmUYwF26xav/j32O8Fu7ItUpBGcl2JCY 5/Dv+NkT9mPKc1gSUjxOelv3YoqUPu/jaIkY3opWWbIgNUpOaE gnsGNYlJ18C8UIdFOeUsw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 28 June 2010 19:17:39 Tony Luck wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> Call Trace: > >> [] show_stack+0x50/0xa0 > >> [] dump_stack+0x30/0x50 > >> [] warn_slowpath_common+0xc0/0x120 > >> [] warn_slowpath_null+0x40/0x60 > >> [] tty_open+0x160/0xc60 > >> [] chrdev_open+0x310/0x360 > >> [] __dentry_open+0x350/0x680 > >> [] nameidata_to_filp+0x80/0xc0 > >> [] finish_open+0x160/0x380 > >> [] do_last+0xbc0/0xce0 > >> [] do_filp_open+0x2f0/0xb40 > >> [] do_sys_open+0x90/0x200 > >> [] sys_open+0x50/0x80 > >> [] kernel_init+0x340/0x420 > >> [] kernel_thread_helper+0x30/0x60 > >> [] start_kernel_thread+0x20/0x40 > > > > Ok, this is the same one you reported at first. I forgot to > > mention that the other patch I sent as a reply to your report > > is still needed and not yet in -next since I'm trying to > > sort through the other BKL removal patches now. > > This instance of the WARN_ON is completely harmless though, > > you could consider this one a false positive. > > Quick status check. I'm still seeing these messages in next-20100628. > Are you still working on a fix? I got distracted and it wasn't on my list of pressing issues because this particular warning is harmless. I should get the base bkl series into -next to fix this. For the other issue (garbled output), I'm not sure how to proceed. Alan didn't like the easy workaround of reverting the commit that introduced it and the fix that Alan suggested only solved the problem partially as far as I can tell. Arnd