16 Jan
2008
16 Jan
'08
1:28 a.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 02:40 +0300, Dmitry wrote:
I'm sorry, but I tested this patch only now. And I just got another message from lockdep:
No problem, I managed to reproduce your original case so I was confident of the fix. This one looks at first glance to be a very similar problem due to unneeded locking during initialisation so it shouldn't cause any issues in practise other than the warning from lockdep. I'll have a proper look on Thursday (I won't be able to tomorrow).