From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932279AbWFDWDQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:03:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932287AbWFDWDP (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:03:15 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com ([66.249.82.207]:34770 "EHLO wx-out-0102.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932279AbWFDWDN (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:03:13 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=XXFx+Vqe7Du362LE6JJi8S4DxUYpa602MWAj50rBHhhFugnIwB+yzbGI/W2JoCwYCbgG3cavYwP7NVUG7EIWVELxsC/TncbyVLAaiI71u2PW556TshFhvvinb8O3cA+AYXrqQFzWyTcyjmQ8bKzGqGBgMv8C1lzGuC+ll+DYlX8= Message-ID: <986ed62e0606041503v701f8882la4cbead47ae3982f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:03:12 -0700 From: "Barry K. Nathan" To: "Ingo Molnar" Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?) Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, "Andrew Morton" , arjan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-dev@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20060604213432.GB5898@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <986ed62e0606040504n148bf744x77bd0669a5642dd0@mail.gmail.com> <20060604133326.f1b01cfc.akpm@osdl.org> <200606042056.k54KuoKQ005588@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060604213432.GB5898@elte.hu> X-Google-Sender-Auth: a2ee12d0ae2c8818 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/4/06, Ingo Molnar wrote: > nevertheless i'll turn that warning into a less scary message. This discussion seems to imply that I reported a false positive... is it *known* that I reported a false positive, or is it only a strong possibility? Assuming it's a false positive: Since this stops the tracer, it means that if an actual deadlock possibility is detected later [I'm assuming that detection of those doesn't get shut down by the bad-lock-ordering detection either], useful information could be missing from /proc/latency_trace, if I am not mistaken. Perhaps this could impede lockdep testing for people running reiser4 filesystems. I guess this is just a theoretical possibility at this point, but perhaps it's worth mentioning. -- -Barry K. Nathan