From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932391AbWFECqu (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:46:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932392AbWFECqu (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:46:50 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net ([216.148.227.154]:31228 "EHLO rwcrmhc14.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932391AbWFECqt (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:46:49 -0400 Message-ID: <44839B1B.6050607@namesys.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:46:51 -0700 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Barry K. Nathan" CC: Ingo Molnar , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Andrew Morton , arjan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-dev@namesys.com, Alexander Zarochentcev Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?) References: <986ed62e0606040504n148bf744x77bd0669a5642dd0@mail.gmail.com> <20060604133326.f1b01cfc.akpm@osdl.org> <200606042056.k54KuoKQ005588@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060604213432.GB5898@elte.hu> <986ed62e0606041503v701f8882la4cbead47ae3982f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <986ed62e0606041503v701f8882la4cbead47ae3982f@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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 Barry K. Nathan wrote: > On 6/4/06, Ingo Molnar 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. Monday Russian time Zam will be in, he is the locking guy for reiser4.