Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?)

[Hans Reiser]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

>* Barry K. Nathan <barryn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On 6/4/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>reporting the first one only is necessary, because the validator cannot
>>>trust a system's dependency info that it sees as incorrect. Deadlock
>>>possibilities are quite rare in a kernel that is "in balance". Right now
>>>we are not "in balance" yet, because the validator has only been added a
>>>couple of days ago. The flurry of initial fixes will die down quickly.
>>>      
>>>
>>So, does that mean the plan is to annotate/tweak things in order to 
>>shut up *each and every* false positive in the kernel?
>>    
>>
>
>yes. 
>
Ingo is very much in the right here.  Things like locking are very hard
to debug, and require serious methodology.  It is worth the hassle.  I
hope we do more things like this in the future.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/