On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:04:36PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > lockdep has seen locks "-> #0" - "-> #3" taken in circular order, but IMHO,
> > lock "-> #3" (&pch->downl) taken after "-> #2" (&ppp->wlock) differs from
> > &pch->downl lock taken in "-> #0" (before
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:39:11AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:27:29 -0700
>
> > lockdep has seen locks "-> #0" - "-> #3" taken in circular order, but IMHO,
> > lock "-> #3" (&pch->downl) taken after "-> #2" (&ppp->wlock) differs from
> > &pch->
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> lockdep has seen locks "-> #0" - "-> #3" taken in circular order, but IMHO,
> lock "-> #3" (&pch->downl) taken after "-> #2" (&ppp->wlock) differs from
> &pch->downl lock taken in "-> #0" (before &vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key) and
> lockdep should be notified about this.
>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:27:29 -0700
> lockdep has seen locks "-> #0" - "-> #3" taken in circular order, but IMHO,
> lock "-> #3" (&pch->downl) taken after "-> #2" (&ppp->wlock) differs from
> &pch->downl lock taken in "-> #0" (before &vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key) and
> lock
From: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ===
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.21-rc4 #1
> ---
> pppd/8926 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_k
