From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265836AbUBJLps (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:45:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265839AbUBJLps (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:45:48 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:36561 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265836AbUBJLpp (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:45:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:45:21 +0100 From: Karsten Keil To: linux-kernel Subject: Re: oops in old isdn4linux and 2.6.2-rc3 (was in -rc2 too) Message-ID: <20040210114521.GA21900@pingi3.kke.suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel References: <401E4A80.4050907@web.de> <20040202195139.GB2534@pingi3.kke.suse.de> <1076328820.11882.27.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> <1076378022.11882.80.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> <20040210025117.GB17364@pingi3.kke.suse.de> <1076408351.11882.101.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1076408351.11882.101.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SuSE Linux AG X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.21-166-default i686 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:19:11AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 03:51 +0100, Karsten Keil wrote: > > Your analyse is correct, but the error is, that > > ll_writewakeup is called with the lock. > > Upper layers should not be called in this path. > > That's an evidently sensible answer, yes -- but it looks like it's > always been like this, and fixing it really wasn't not a task I > particularly wanted to undertake at 2am this morning... I think I might > leave that to you :) I don't want give you the impression of a "evidently sensible answer", (maybe ist was also a little bit late or early ... :-) I only want to point out that here is a deeper design flaw in this code and it is here for a long time, but the old none spinlock code with a big CLI (bad,bad,bad) make it working well enough. During porting I saw this problem, but forget to mark it for fixing later. These things (missing separation of layers) was one reason for me to begin a new driver from scratch some time ago (mISDN). -- Karsten Keil SuSE Labs ISDN development