Re: lockdep trace from nfsd

2013-03-05 Thread Mandeep Baines
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Dave Jones wrote: >> [ 39.878535] = >> [ 39.879670] [ BUG: rpc.nfsd/666 still has locks held! ] >> [ 39.880871] 3.8.0+ #3 Not tainted >> [ 39.881858] --

Re: lockdep trace from nfsd

2013-03-01 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > [ 39.878535] = > [ 39.879670] [ BUG: rpc.nfsd/666 still has locks held! ] > [ 39.880871] 3.8.0+ #3 Not tainted > [ 39.881858] - > [ 39.882850] 2 locks on stack by

Re: lockdep trace from nfsd

2013-02-28 Thread Jeff Layton
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:30:38 -0500 Dave Jones wrote: > [ 39.878535] = > [ 39.879670] [ BUG: rpc.nfsd/666 still has locks held! ] > [ 39.880871] 3.8.0+ #3 Not tainted > [ 39.881858] - > [ 39.882850] 2 locks on stack

lockdep trace from nfsd

2013-02-28 Thread Dave Jones
[ 39.878535] = [ 39.879670] [ BUG: rpc.nfsd/666 still has locks held! ] [ 39.880871] 3.8.0+ #3 Not tainted [ 39.881858] - [ 39.882850] 2 locks on stack by rpc.nfsd/666: [ 39.883868] #0: held: (nfsd_mutex){+.+.+