Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0

2005-08-15 Thread Zwane Mwaikambo
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Harald Welte wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:15:53PM -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > > Is the following patch correct? ip_conntrack_event_cache should never be > > called with ip_conntrack_lock held and ct_add_counters does not need to be > > called with ip_conntrack_

Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0

2005-08-15 Thread Harald Welte
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:15:53PM -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > Is the following patch correct? ip_conntrack_event_cache should never be > called with ip_conntrack_lock held and ct_add_counters does not need to be > called with ip_conntrack_lock held. No, it's not correct. ct_add_countes ha

Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0

2005-08-14 Thread Zwane Mwaikambo
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > I've got the following BUG on Asus L5D (x86-64) with the 2.6.13-rc5-mm1 > kernel: > > BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0, nscd/3668, 8817d4a0 > > Call Trace:{add_preempt_count+105} > {rwlock_bug+114} >{_raw_write_lock+62} > {_write_l

Re: 2.6.13-rc5-mm1: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0

2005-08-14 Thread Patrick McHardy
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > I've got the following BUG on Asus L5D (x86-64) with the 2.6.13-rc5-mm1 > kernel: > > BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0, nscd/3668, 8817d4a0 > > Call Trace:{add_preempt_count+105} > {rwlock_bug+114} >{_raw_write_lock+62} > {_write_lock_bh+40} >{: