On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote:
> I am confused. Lockdep has observed both of these stacks: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock); > lock(_xmit_ETHER#2); > lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock); > lock(_xmit_ETHER#2); > > > So it somehow happened. Or what do you mean? > Lockdep said " possible circular locking dependency detected " . It is not an actual deadlock, but lockdep machinery firing. For a dead lock to happen, this would require that he ICMP message sent by ip_expire() is itself fragmented and reassembled. This cannot be, because ICMP messages are not candidates for fragmentation, but lockdep can not know that of course...
