From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 2/2] net: introduce netif_addr_lock_nested() and call if when appropriate Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:07:08 +0000 Message-ID: <1326136028.2725.0.camel@bwh-desktop> References: <1326125915-2711-1-git-send-email-jpirko@redhat.com> <1326125915-2711-2-git-send-email-jpirko@redhat.com> <20120109163654.GC2114@minipsycho.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:62735 "EHLO ocex02.SolarFlarecom.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751013Ab2AITHO (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:07:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20120109163654.GC2114@minipsycho.brq.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 17:36 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > dev_uc_sync() and dev_mc_sync() are acquiring netif_addr_lock for > destination device of synchronization. Since netif_addr_lock is already > held at the time for source device, this triggers depmod deathlock > warning. [...] I think you mean '...lockdep deadlock warning'? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.