From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932765Ab1KPAkJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:40:09 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60790 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932574Ab1KPAkH (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:40:07 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:39:49 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: at fs/sysfs/sysfs.h:195 (during boot)
Message-ID: <20111116003949.GA15882@suse.de>
References: <20111113192417.GA1659@x4.trippels.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111113192417.GA1659@x4.trippels.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 08:24:17PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> I'm seeing this for the fist time:
> 
> ...
> XFS (sda): Mounting Filesystem
> XFS (sda): Ending clean mount
> ATL1E 0000:02:00.0: irq 40 for MSI/MSI-X
> ATL1E 0000:02:00.0: eth0: NIC Link is Up <100 Mbps Full Duplex>
> ATL1E 0000:02:00.0: eth0: NIC Link is Up <100 Mbps Full Duplex>
> udevd[888]: starting version 171
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: at fs/sysfs/sysfs.h:195 sysfs_get_inode+0x136/0x140()
> Hardware name: System Product Name
> Pid: 945, comm: udevadm Not tainted 3.2.0-rc1-00252-g8f042aa #49
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff81072795>] warn_slowpath_common+0x75/0xb0
>  [<ffffffff81072895>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
>  [<ffffffff81167b26>] sysfs_get_inode+0x136/0x140
>  [<ffffffff811695df>] sysfs_lookup+0x6f/0x110
>  [<ffffffff8111b739>] d_alloc_and_lookup+0x39/0x80
>  [<ffffffff8111ca93>] do_lookup+0x283/0x390
>  [<ffffffff8111d954>] path_lookupat+0x114/0x6d0
>  [<ffffffff8111b946>] ? getname_flags+0x36/0x230
>  [<ffffffff8111df3b>] do_path_lookup+0x2b/0x70
>  [<ffffffff8111e3a8>] user_path_at_empty+0x58/0xb0
>  [<ffffffff81169d4c>] ? sysfs_put_link+0x1c/0x20
>  [<ffffffff81120ac4>] ? generic_readlink+0x84/0xa0
>  [<ffffffff8111e40c>] user_path_at+0xc/0x10
>  [<ffffffff811161e0>] vfs_fstatat+0x30/0x70
>  [<ffffffff8112d94b>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x2b/0xe0
>  [<ffffffff81116236>] vfs_stat+0x16/0x20
>  [<ffffffff81116305>] sys_newstat+0x15/0x30
>  [<ffffffff8111642e>] ? sys_readlinkat+0x7e/0xb0
>  [<ffffffff814d2c7b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> ---[ end trace 2226f614d7765573 ]---
> Adding 2097148k swap on /var/tmp/swap/swapfile.  Priority:-1 extents:2 across:2634672k
> 
> fs/sysfs/sysfs.h:195: 
>     WARN_ON(!atomic_read(&sd->s_count));

Odd, is it reproducable?

Eric, any ideas?

thanks,

greg k-h