Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer

2006-07-05 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:33 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Linux version 2.6.17-git22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.0.3 > > (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)) #20 PREEMPT Tue Jul 4 10:35:04 CEST 2006 > > > > > > > > [ 2381

Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer

2006-07-05 Thread Avi Kivity
Arjan van de Ven wrote: From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Linux version 2.6.17-git22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)) #20 PREEMPT Tue Jul 4 10:35:04 CEST 2006 > > [ 2381.598609] = > [ 2381.619314] [ INFO: p

Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer

2006-07-05 Thread Duncan Sands
> ok this is a real potential deadlock in a way, it takes two locks of 2 > skbuffs without doing any kind of lock ordering; I think the following > patch should fix it. Just sort the lock taking order by address of the > skb.. it's not pretty but it's the best this can do in a minimally > invasive

Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer

2006-07-04 Thread Arjan van de Ven
From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Linux version 2.6.17-git22 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.0.3 (Ubuntu > 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)) #20 PREEMPT Tue Jul 4 10:35:04 CEST 2006 > > [ 2381.598609] = > [ 2381.619314] [ INFO: possible recursive locking