On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:51:43 +0200 Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I found the problem, the rtnl_mutex was reinitialized on every
> rtnetlink socket creation. This is most likely responsible for both
> warnings.
Yup, no warnings any more, thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this li
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:51:43 +0200
> [NETLINK]: don't reinitialize callback mutex
>
> Don't reinitialize the callback mutex the netlink_kernel_create caller
> handed in, it is supposed to already be initialized and could already
> be held by someone.
>
Andrew Morton wrote:
> I just retested bare net-2.6.22, pulled 30 minutes ago. I got just one
> warning:
>
> BUG: at kernel/mutex-debug.c:82 debug_mutex_unlock()
> [] debug_mutex_unlock+0x5a/0x134
> [] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x9d/0xcf
> [] ipw_wx_set_encode+0x0/0x82 [ipw2200]
> [] rtnl_unloc
I just retested bare net-2.6.22, pulled 30 minutes ago. I got just one
warning:
PM: Removing info for No Bus::06:0b.0
eth0: no IPv6 routers present
ipw2200: Radio Frequency Kill Switch is On:
Kill switch must be turned off for wireless networking to work.
PM: Adding info for No Bus:eth1
ipw
Herbert Xu wrote:
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I think I see what might be the problem, nlk->cb_mutex is set
>>to "rtnl_mutex" and this is used for other purposes in various
>>code paths here, maybe there is a double mutex_unlock() or
>>similar due to that?
>
>
> Indeed, the RTN
David Miller wrote:
> I think I see what might be the problem, nlk->cb_mutex is set
> to "rtnl_mutex" and this is used for other purposes in various
> code paths here, maybe there is a double mutex_unlock() or
> similar due to that?
Nothing in the callbacks should be touching the rtnl, that would
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is it illegal to sleep with a mutex held?
Shouldn't be.
> I think I see what might be the problem, nlk->cb_mutex is set
> to "rtnl_mutex" and this is used for other purposes in various
> code paths here, maybe there is a double mutex_unlock() or
> sim
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:20:08 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:42:50 -0700
>
> > void debug_mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock)
> > {
> > if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
> > return;
> >
> > --> DEBUG
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:42:50 -0700
> void debug_mutex_unlock(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
> return;
>
> --> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(lock->owner != current_thread_info());
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(lock->magic
http://test.kernel.org/abat/84786/debug/console.log is saying
Starting udevd BUG: at kernel/mutex-debug.c:82 debug_mutex_unlock()
Call Trace:
[] debug_mutex_unlock+0x161/0x170
[] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x5c/0x160
[] netlink_dump+0x82/0x1e0
[] netlink_dump_start+0x142/0x180
[] rtnl_dump_ifin
10 matches
Mail list logo
