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

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 04:32:31PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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 ;)

Hi Eric,

Is this the same locking problem that this patch fixes?

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/11/26

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/