Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock

2014-03-03 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
Hello, On (03/03/14 07:30), Minchan Kim wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > I'm not in office now and I would be off in this week, maybe > so I don't have source code on top of Sergey's recent change > but it seems below code has same problem. > > Pz, Sergey or Jerome Could you confirm it instead of me?

Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock

2014-03-02 Thread Minchan Kim
Hello Andrew, I'm not in office now and I would be off in this week, maybe so I don't have source code on top of Sergey's recent change but it seems below code has same problem. Pz, Sergey or Jerome Could you confirm it instead of me? On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:32:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote

Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock

2014-03-01 Thread Sergey Senozhatsky
On (02/28/14 16:32), Andrew Morton wrote: > Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:32:06 -0800 > From: Andrew Morton > To: Minchan Kim > Cc: Sasha Levin , ngu...@vflare.org, LKML > , Sergey Senozhatsky > > Subject: Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock > X-Mailer: Sylphe

Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock

2014-02-28 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:56:29 +0900 Minchan Kim wrote: > Sasha reported following below lockdep spew of zram. > > It was introduced by [1] in recent linux-next but it's false positive > because zram_meta_alloc with down_write(init_lock) couldn't be called > during zram is working as swap device s

Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock

2014-02-27 Thread Minchan Kim
Hello Sasha, On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 09:48:37AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > Hi all, > > I've stumbled on the following spew while fuzzing with trinity > inside a KVM tools guest running latest -next. It looks like a false > positive (we only set size for uninitialized devices, so we can't > deadl