Hi Jens, On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:58:33 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ;-) I'm aware of that, I meant the 'timer' data argument. But you are > right, it's probably q->queue_lock being NULL here or we would have > oopsed earlier. There's no code line. > > > address of the spinlock (though I need to check more to be sure) as it > > crashed inside _spin_lock_irqsave. > > Do you know what device this might be? It still makes no sense, if the > timer was added, we went through the normal IO paths and we would have > crashed on NULL ->queue_lock much earlier.
I don't know much more, but I may find out tomorrow with Paul's help. However it bisects down to commit 279430a72bb6e83d335b4219e9af5557e2ff3350 "block: leave the request timeout timer running even on an empty list" and reverting that commit on next-20081118 makes the spinlock lockup go away. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgplwMg7jlZHr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
