On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote: > > > Any chance that > > > git revert 69cc64d8d92 > > > makes this report go away? > I've tested the patch and I no longer get that lock thing in my syslog.
Thanks for verification. Hmm, I don't immediately see how this patch could make neigh->lock owner to change between lock and unlock ... I have skimmed through the solicit methods, and they don't seem to be doing anything nasty to neigh ... The scenario I was thinking about is that before 69cc64d8d92, if any of the _solicit methods could do anything bad to neigh struct, this warning wouldn't trigger, because the lock has been dropped before calling _solicit() and reacquired later, so no mismatch on ->current could happen, but now as long as the lock is held during _solicit() call, this would trigger on the next unlock. But I am not able to see anything like that in the code. Dave, do you have any idea? (the thread started at http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/105). -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
