From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: circular locking, mirred, 2.6.24.2 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:39:30 +0000 Message-ID: <20080225113930.GA4733@ff.dom.local> References: <20080224222035.M62480@visp.net.lb> <20080225095646.GA4321@ff.dom.local> <20080225104652.M2446@visp.net.lb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Denys Fedoryshchenko Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]:26405 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753243AbYBYLi3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:38:29 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so749373ugc.16 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:38:27 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080225104652.M2446@visp.net.lb> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:48:38PM +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > What does it mean early? > I have custom boot scripts, it is also custom system based on busybox. There > is a chance that i forgot to bring ifb0 up, but thats it. > I think such warning must not appear on any actions in userspace. It's not about ifb0: this report shows loopback_init after some action on eth, so eth was probably up before lo. And of course you are right: this warning shouldn't be there. But, since this report looks very strange, I wonder if there could be something else that mislead lockdep. Could you try to reproduce this with 2.6.24.2 without these additional patches? Jarek P.