On Sun, Apr 24, 2016, at 23:25, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> - WARN_ON(!lockdep_sock_is_held(sk));
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!lockdep_sock_is_held(sk) && !debug_locks);
> #endif
Eric, could you resend this patch without the negation and also add my
acked-by (I came finally ar
On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 14:25 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 17:13 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:00:17 -0700, Eric Dumazet said:
> > > On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 15:56 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:46:42 -0700, E
On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 17:13 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:00:17 -0700, Eric Dumazet said:
> > On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 15:56 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:46:42 -0700, Eric Dumazet said:
> > >
> > > > >>> + return !debug_locks ||
On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:00:17 -0700, Eric Dumazet said:
> On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 15:56 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:46:42 -0700, Eric Dumazet said:
> >
> > > >>> + return !debug_locks ||
> > > >>> +lockdep_is_held(&sk->sk_lock) ||
> >
> > > Issue he
On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 15:56 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:46:42 -0700, Eric Dumazet said:
>
> > >>> + return !debug_locks ||
> > >>> + lockdep_is_held(&sk->sk_lock) ||
>
> > Issue here is that once lockdep detected a problem (not necessarily in
On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:46:42 -0700, Eric Dumazet said:
> >>> + return !debug_locks ||
> >>> +lockdep_is_held(&sk->sk_lock) ||
> Issue here is that once lockdep detected a problem (not necessarily in
> net/ tree btw), your helper always 'detect' a problem, since lockdep
> automatically dis
On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 14:54 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:48:24 +0200
>
> > Eric's patch is worth to apply anyway, but I am not sure if it solves
> > the (fundamental) problem. I couldn't reproduce it with the exact next-
> > tag provided in t
On Sun, 2016-04-24 at 20:48 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On 24.04.2016 20:38, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:49:37 +0200
> >
> >> On 21.04.2016 15:31, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 05:05 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wro
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:48:24 +0200
> Eric's patch is worth to apply anyway, but I am not sure if it solves
> the (fundamental) problem. I couldn't reproduce it with the exact next-
> tag provided in the initial mail. All other reports also only happend
> with linux-n
On 24.04.2016 20:38, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:49:37 +0200
>
>> On 21.04.2016 15:31, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 05:05 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:42:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa said:
>>>
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:49:37 +0200
> On 21.04.2016 15:31, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 05:05 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:42:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa said:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 02:30, Va
On 21.04.2016 15:31, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 05:05 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:42:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa said:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 02:30, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
linux-next 20160420 is whining at an incredible
On 21.04.2016 15:31, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 05:05 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:42:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa said:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 02:30, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
linux-next 20160420 is whining at an incredible
On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 05:05 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:42:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa said:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 02:30, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> > > linux-next 20160420 is whining at an incredible rate - in 20 minutes of
> > > uptime, I pi
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:42:12 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa said:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 02:30, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> > linux-next 20160420 is whining at an incredible rate - in 20 minutes of
> > uptime, I piled up some 41,000 hits from all over the place (cleaned up
> > to skip the CP
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 02:30, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> linux-next 20160420 is whining at an incredible rate - in 20 minutes of
> uptime, I piled up some 41,000 hits from all over the place (cleaned up
> to skip the CPU and PID so the list isn't quite so long):
Thanks for the report. Can yo
linux-next 20160420 is whining at an incredible rate - in 20 minutes of
uptime, I piled up some 41,000 hits from all over the place (cleaned up
to skip the CPU and PID so the list isn't quite so long):
% grep include/net/sock.h /var/log/messages | cut -f5- -d: | sed -e 's/PID:
[0-9]* /PID: (elid
17 matches
Mail list logo
