Re: 2.6.33-rc3 -- INFO: possible recursive locking -- (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d2941>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f

[Eric W. Biederman]

Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 01/11/2010 11:26 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:13:35 -0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] sysfs: Add support for lockdep subclasses to s_active
>> 
>> We have apparently valid cases where the code for a sysfs attribute
>> removes other sysfs attributes.  Without support for subclasses
>> lockdep flags a possible recursive lock problem as it figures
>> the first sysfs attribute could be attempting to remove itself.
>> 
>> By adding support for sysfs subclasses we can teach lockdep to
>> distinguish between different types of sysfs attributes and not
>> get confused.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>

Now if I can just get a Tested-by  this patch will be all set ;)

Eric

--
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/