Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:41:14 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fb: Rework locking to fix lock ordering on takeover | From | Cong Wang <> |
| |
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:45:45 -0500 >>> Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > [The fb maintainer appears to be absent at the moment]. >>>> > >>>> > This is needed to fix a pile of lockdep splats that now show up because console_lock() >>>> > is being properly audited. Hugh Dickins and Sasha Levin have tested it and both reports >>>> > all looks good. This is probably not the whole story - the entire fb layer has locking >>>> > confusion problems that were previously hidden but it seems to get the ones people hit >>>> > in testing. This hopefully explains a few of the weird fb hangs that have been floating >>>> > around forever. >>>> > >>>> > From: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> >>>> > >>>> > Adjust the console layer to allow a take over call where the caller already >>>> > holds the locks. Make the fb layer lock in order. >>>> > >>>> > This s partly a band aid, the fb layer is terminally confused about the >>>> > locking rules it uses for its notifiers it seems. >>>> > >>>> > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com> >>>> >>>> Should this eventually get into the stable trees? >>> >>> Thats a question I'm not sure about at this point. I think the bug is >>> real but not caught by the lock checker in older trees but I've not >>> investigated. >> >> So... this patch seems to still be twisting in the wind. It should >> probably be headed into 3.8 at this point, shouldn't it? > > Indeed it should. I'm seeing the original warnings in 3.8-rc1 and have > to carry this patch to avoid them.
This patch can fix the following warning we saw? http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/22/53
I will give it a try.
| |