From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
Subject: Re: [BUG] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:12:45 +0100
Message-ID: <20070216121245.GE1599@ff.dom.local>
References: <20070216072928.GA1599@ff.dom.local> <45D55FF0.8090309@candelatech.com> <20070216081051.GC1599@ff.dom.local> <45D569E9.7010407@candelatech.com> <20070216090425.GD1599@ff.dom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>,
	Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Kyle Lucke <klucke@us.ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra Koushik <raghavendra.koushik@neterion.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx10.go2.pl ([193.17.41.74]:58983 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751326AbXBPMJa (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:09:30 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070216090425.GD1599@ff.dom.local>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:04:25AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:23:05AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
...
> > I don't see how asserting it in the rtnl_lock would help anything, 
> > because at that
> > point we are about to deadlock anyway...  (and this is probably very 
> > rare, as mentioned above.)
> 
> But it's happening now. Probably lockdep is not enough
> and rtnl_lock is probably used in too many places, so I
> meant some additional checks would be possible.

And of course it already could be done by DEBUG_MUTEXES or
DEBUG_SPINLOCK, so I gone too far and it's really bad idea.

Jarek P.