From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [LOCKDEP BUG][2.6.36-rc1] xt_info_wrlock? Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:35:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1281987352.2487.40.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1281978469.3268.55.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1281979893.2524.54.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1281981301.3268.110.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1281982566.3268.137.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1281983814.1926.1763.camel@laptop> <1281984528.2487.25.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1281986177.1926.1858.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Steven Rostedt , netdev@vger.kernel.org, LKML , "David S. Miller" , Patrick McHardy , Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Return-path: Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:63222 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756356Ab0HPTf7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:35:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1281986177.1926.1858.camel@laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le lundi 16 ao=C3=BBt 2010 =C3=A0 21:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra a =C3=A9c= rit : > Adding lockdep_off() is just plain wrong, if you cannot describe the > locking there's a fair chance its wrong anyway. >=20 I see. I described the fine locking after Steven comment, adding a long Changelog. http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/61827/ If someone thinks this locking is buggy, please speak now ;)