On 17-04-2007 21:46, David Miller wrote: > From: Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:08:25 +0400 > >> Otherwise the following calltrace will lead to a wrong >> lockdep warning: >> >> neigh_proxy_process() >> `- lock(neigh_table->proxy_queue.lock); >> arp_redo /* via tbl->proxy_redo */ >> arp_process >> neigh_event_ns >> neigh_update >> skb_queue_purge >> `- lock(neighbor->arp_queue.lock); >> >> This is not a deadlock actually, as neighbor table's proxy_queue >> and the neighbor's arp_queue are different queues. >> >> Lockdep thinks there is a deadlock as both queues are initialized >> with skb_queue_head_init() and thus have a common class. > > Patch applied, thank you. > > Please provide a proper "Signed-off-by: " line in future patch ...
And I'd suggest to attach a lockdep's log, or some reference to it, for some born unbelievers... Regards, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
