Hello, guys. Sorry about the delay.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:11:18PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > [ 448.189960] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 448.195214] WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 69219 at fs/sysfs/file.c:79 > sysfs_file_ops+0x59/0x70() So, that's "lockdep_assert_held(sd);" in sysfs_file_ops(). > [ 448.273805] [<ffffffff81248bd9>] sysfs_file_ops+0x59/0x70 > [ 448.279973] [<ffffffff81249628>] sysfs_open_file+0x88/0x330 Triggering from sysfs_open_file() > [ 448.366842] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 448.372030] WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 69219 at fs/sysfs/file.c:79 > sysfs_file_ops+0x59/0x70() ... > [ 448.457806] [<ffffffff81248cbb>] sysfs_seq_show+0xcb/0x180 and then from sysfs_seq_show(), which is weird because lockdep_assert_held(sd) checks whether sd's active ref is held and both do hold them. Hmm.... ah, right, I forgot about ->ignore_lockdep, we need to skip the assertion for files marked with ignore_lockdep. Will send a patch soon. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
