Got this lockdep warning straightaway during boot:
[7.435890] =
[7.435891] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[7.435893] 3.8.0-next-20130204+pcipatch-xeon+lockdep #20130204+pcipatch Not
tainted
[7.435893] -
Got this lockdep warning straightaway during boot:
[7.435890] =
[7.435891] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[7.435893] 3.8.0-next-20130204+pcipatch-xeon+lockdep #20130204+pcipatch Not
tainted
[7.435893] -
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 14:09 +0200, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > [ 75.430015] ==
> > [ 75.430015] [ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
> Yes, that's a known issue, the scenario where it actually dead locks is
> impossibl
Johannes Berg writes:
> Francisco,
>
> The patch you pointed me works, but now, although it's probably not due
> to that patch, I get a lockdep warning:
>
> [ 75.428119] [drm] nouveau :02:00.0: nouveau_channel_free: freeing fifo
> 2
> [ 75.430015]
> [ 75.430015] ==
Francisco,
The patch you pointed me works, but now, although it's probably not due
to that patch, I get a lockdep warning:
[ 75.428119] [drm] nouveau :02:00.0: nouveau_channel_free: freeing fifo 2
[ 75.430015]
[ 75.430015] ==
[ 75.4
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 14:09 +0200, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > [ 75.430015] ==
> > [ 75.430015] [ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
> Yes, that's a known issue, the scenario where it actually dead locks is
> impossibl
Johannes Berg writes:
> Francisco,
>
> The patch you pointed me works, but now, although it's probably not due
> to that patch, I get a lockdep warning:
>
> [ 75.428119] [drm] nouveau :02:00.0: nouveau_channel_free: freeing fifo
> 2
> [ 75.430015]
> [ 75.430015] ==
Francisco,
The patch you pointed me works, but now, although it's probably not due
to that patch, I get a lockdep warning:
[ 75.428119] [drm] nouveau :02:00.0: nouveau_channel_free: freeing fifo 2
[ 75.430015]
[ 75.430015] ==
[ 75.4
