* Hannes Frederic Sowa [160420 08:24]:
> Hi,
>
> On 20.04.2016 17:01, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for
> > sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for
> > smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It keeps spamming with the following
Hi,
On 20.04.2016 17:01, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for
> sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for
> smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It keeps spamming with the following
> message. Any ideas?
Not yet, can you quickly sen
* Tony Lindgren [160420 08:02]:
> Hi,
>
> Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for
> sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for
> smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It keeps spamming with the following
> message. Any ideas?
Sorry forgot to add Steve to Cc,
Hi,
Looks like commit fafc4e1ea1a4 ("sock: tigthen lockdep checks for
sock_owned_by_user") in next causes a regression at least for
smsc911x with CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It keeps spamming with the following
message. Any ideas?
Regards,
Tony
8<
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at include/net/sock