v3.9-rc1: swapper/0 [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
Maxime Ripard
maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com
Thu Mar 7 05:24:47 EST 2013
Hi Peter,
Le 07/03/2013 09:08, Peter Chen a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> [ 2.149645] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 2.149645]
>> [ 2.157667] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 2.157667]
>> [ 2.163598] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 2.168134] ---- ----
>> [ 2.172667] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2.176790] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2.183255] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2.189893] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock);
>
> The precondition of above is the chipidea interrupt can be re-entered.
> But as far as I know, the same interrupt can't be re-entered at current
> system.
Yes, it seems to work quite fine anyway, but I'm not sure simply
ignoring this would be the right answer.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list