diff options
| author | Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk> | 2012-11-20 23:25:54 -0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> | 2013-01-03 03:33:27 +0000 |
| commit | 37021f68aa5cfe2b838bea7dfdeae99d7c9bdc6e (patch) | |
| tree | 23cdb0cef8faac34f19cd04b83d6a62d50b6e115 /sound | |
| parent | b1beed0d7e3c140862cfbad7cf2a217aa1ff285b (diff) | |
Bluetooth: Add missing lock nesting notation
commit dc2a0e20fbc85a71c63aa4330b496fda33f6bf80 upstream.
This patch fixes the following report, it happens when accepting rfcomm
connections:
[ 228.165378] =============================================
[ 228.165378] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 228.165378] 3.7.0-rc1-00536-gc1d5dc4 #120 Tainted: G W
[ 228.165378] ---------------------------------------------
[ 228.165378] bluetoothd/1341 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 228.165378] (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_RFCOMM){+.+...}, at:
[<ffffffffa0000aa0>] bt_accept_dequeue+0xa0/0x180 [bluetooth]
[ 228.165378]
[ 228.165378] but task is already holding lock:
[ 228.165378] (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_RFCOMM){+.+...}, at:
[<ffffffffa0205118>] rfcomm_sock_accept+0x58/0x2d0 [rfcomm]
[ 228.165378]
[ 228.165378] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 228.165378] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 228.165378]
[ 228.165378] CPU0
[ 228.165378] ----
[ 228.165378] lock(sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_RFCOMM);
[ 228.165378] lock(sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH-BTPROTO_RFCOMM);
[ 228.165378]
[ 228.165378] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 228.165378]
[ 228.165378] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Diffstat (limited to 'sound')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions