> > am i right that lockdep complained about real lockup potential here? > > (i.e. it caught a real bug) So there's no need to change anything on the > > lockdep side, right? > > Right, no bug in lockdep, the locking code and swap_io_context() are > just screwed up. >
I doubt a bug in lockdep. Here we just swap the pointers but use the addresses themselves to order locks. And we do not change the contents(lock) in those addresses. So it could be a lockdep bug. Thanks Nikanth Karthikesan -- 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/
