On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Laurent Pinchart
> >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:15
> PM, Ionut Nicu wrote:
>>> > I noticed this too, but this patch should fix it:
>>> >
>>> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/365292/
>>>
>>> True. And in
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Laurent Pinchart
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:15
PM, Ionut Nicu wrote:
>> > I noticed this too, but this patch should fix it:
>> >
>> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/365292/
>>
>> True. And in this patch the move to spin_lock_bh() is justifiable,
>> too, sinc
Hi Ionut and Ohad,
On Sunday 12 December 2010 15:22:38 Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Ionut Nicu wrote:
> > I noticed this too, but this patch should fix it:
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/365292/
>
> True. And in this patch the move to spin_lock_bh() is ju
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Ionut Nicu wrote:
> I noticed this too, but this patch should fix it:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/365292/
True. And in this patch the move to spin_lock_bh() is justifiable,
too, since it adds a sending path which is parallel to the mailbox
tasklet.
>
>
Hi Laurent,
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 13:44 +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> While testing the tidspbridge driver (2.6.37-rc5, plus patches from the
> dspbridge branch in linux-omap-2.6) I ran into the following lock
> inconsistency:
>
> [ 191.045166]
Hi Laurent,
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Laurent Pinchart
> > [ 191.085479] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W}
state was registered at:
> [ 191.090576] [] __lock_acquire+0x5f0/0x17c4
> [ 191.095947] [] lock_acquire+0xd8/0xfc
> [ 191.100860] [] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40
> [ 191.105957] [] omap_mbox_ms
Hi Ohad,
While testing the tidspbridge driver (2.6.37-rc5, plus patches from the
dspbridge branch in linux-omap-2.6) I ran into the following lock
inconsistency:
[ 191.045166] =
[ 191.051269] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
[ 191.055816] 2.6.37-rc5-00062-gd8
