On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:08:21AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
> >> > -next
> >> > kernel I've stumbled on
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:55:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hmm, it failed on a try lock, but on the spinlock within the trylock. I
> wonder if we should add this.
>
> Peter?
>
> -- Steve
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> index 6815171..6579f84
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:55:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Hmm, it failed on a try lock, but on the spinlock within the trylock. I
wonder if we should add this.
Peter?
-- Steve
diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
index 6815171..6579f84 100644
---
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:08:21AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
-next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:08:21 -0400
Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
> >> > -next
> >> > kernel I've stumbled on the
On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:08:21 -0400
Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com wrote:
On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
-next
kernel I've stumbled on the
On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
>> > -next
>> > kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
> Thanks for report. So the problem seems to be
On 05/12/2014 12:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest
-next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
Thanks for report. So the problem seems to be maginally valid but
On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
> kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
Thanks for report. So the problem seems to be maginally valid but I'm not
100% sure whom to blame :). So printk()
On Wed 07-05-14 22:03:08, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
Thanks for report. So the problem seems to be maginally valid but I'm not
100% sure whom to blame :). So printk()
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
[ 262.793172] ==
[ 262.794555] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 262.796110]
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
[ 262.793172] ==
[ 262.794555] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 262.796110]
12 matches
Mail list logo