Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> Hm... This is another case of of two different sockets taking the same
>> lock...
>>
>> Arjan, did this every get fixed, or is the nested locking the right
>> solution
>> to this?
>>
>
> for this specific case it's ok and the nested solution is ri
Vlad Yasevich wrote:
Hm... This is another case of of two different sockets taking the same lock...
Arjan, did this every get fixed, or is the nested locking the right solution
to this?
for this specific case it's ok and the nested solution is right.
In the general case it's obviously not sa
Zach Brown wrote:
> I'm not sure that I've gotten either the sctp or lockdep details right,
> but with this patch I don't get lockdep yelling at me any more :)
>
> --
>
> sctp: lock_sock_nested in sctp_sock_migrate
>
> sctp_sock_migrate() grabs the socket lock on a newly allocated socket whi
I'm not sure that I've gotten either the sctp or lockdep details right,
but with this patch I don't get lockdep yelling at me any more :)
--
sctp: lock_sock_nested in sctp_sock_migrate
sctp_sock_migrate() grabs the socket lock on a newly allocated socket while
holding the socket lock on an o
