From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3-lockdep - Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:38:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20060612063807.GA23939@elte.hu> References: <200606060250.k562oCrA004583@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <44852819.2080503@gmail.com> <4485798B.4030007@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <4485AFB9.3040005@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20060607071208.GA1951@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Jiri Slaby , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, Stefan Richter , "David S. Miller" , arjan@infradead.org Return-path: To: Herbert Xu Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060607071208.GA1951@gondor.apana.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux1394-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: linux1394-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +0000, Stefan Richter wrote: > > > > BTW, the locking in -mm's net/unix/af_unix.c::unix_stream_connect() > > differs a bit from stock unix_stream_connect(). I see spin_lock_bh() in > > 2.6.17-rc5-mm3 where 2.6.17-rc5 has spin_lock(). > > Hi Ingo: > > Looks like this change was introduced by the validator patch. Any > idea why this was done? AF_UNIX is a user-space-driven socket so there > shouldn't be any need for BH to be disabled there. yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock will have to get per-address family locking rules - right? Maybe it's enough to introduce a separate key for AF_UNIX alone (and still having all other protocols share the locking rules for sk_receive_queue.lock) , by reinitializing its spinlock after sock_init_data()? Ingo