On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:31:47PM -0800, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 09:18 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:34:18PM -0800, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>>Lockdep complains about recursive deadlock of zram->init_lock.
> >>
On 01/20/2013 09:18 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:34:18PM -0800, Nitin Gupta wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Lockdep complains about recursive deadlock of zram->init_lock.
[1] made it false positive because we can't request IO to zram
before setti
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:34:18PM -0800, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Lockdep complains about recursive deadlock of zram->init_lock.
> > [1] made it false positive because we can't request IO to zram
> > before setting disksize. Anyway, we should sh
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Lockdep complains about recursive deadlock of zram->init_lock.
> [1] made it false positive because we can't request IO to zram
> before setting disksize. Anyway, we should shut lockdep up to
> avoid many reporting from user.
>
> This patch all
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:54:45PM +0100, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 03:35 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Lockdep complains about recursive deadlock of zram->init_lock.
> > [1] made it false positive because we can't request IO to zram
> > before setting disksize. Anyway, we should shut loc
On 11/28/2012 03:35 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Lockdep complains about recursive deadlock of zram->init_lock.
> [1] made it false positive because we can't request IO to zram
> before setting disksize. Anyway, we should shut lockdep up to
> avoid many reporting from user.
>
> This patch allocates zr
6 matches
Mail list logo