On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:39:01AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 08/12/2013 09:19 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >On (08/12/13 08:55), Peter Hurley wrote:
> >[..]
> > drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 25 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
>
On 08/12/2013 09:19 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (08/12/13 08:55), Peter Hurley wrote:
[..]
drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 25 +++--
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
I hate to do this, but isn't it actually my patch posted here
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/1
On (08/12/13 08:55), Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>> [..]
> >>> drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 25 +++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >
> >I hate to do this, but isn't it actually my patch posted here
> >https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/1/510
> >
> >which was ta
On 08/12/2013 06:50 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (08/12/13 13:28), Artem Savkov wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 08:04:23AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
Lockdep reports a circular lock dependency between
atomic_read_lock and termios_rwsem [1]. However, a lock
order deadlock is not po
On (08/12/13 13:28), Artem Savkov wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 08:04:23AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > Lockdep reports a circular lock dependency between
> > atomic_read_lock and termios_rwsem [1]. However, a lock
> > order deadlock is not possible since CPU1 only holds a
> > r
Hi Peter,
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 08:04:23AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Lockdep reports a circular lock dependency between
> atomic_read_lock and termios_rwsem [1]. However, a lock
> order deadlock is not possible since CPU1 only holds a
> read lock which cannot prevent CPU0 from also acquiring
Lockdep reports a circular lock dependency between
atomic_read_lock and termios_rwsem [1]. However, a lock
order deadlock is not possible since CPU1 only holds a
read lock which cannot prevent CPU0 from also acquiring
a read lock on the same r/w semaphore.
Unfortunately, lockdep cannot currently d
7 matches
Mail list logo