From: Alexey Dobriyan WARN_ON(de && de->deleted); is sooo unreliable. Why? proc_lookup remove_proc_entry =========== ================= lock_kernel(); spin_lock(&proc_subdir_lock); [find proc entry] spin_unlock(&proc_subdir_lock); spin_lock(&proc_subdir_lock); [find proc entry] proc_get_inode ============== WARN_ON(de && de->deleted); ... if (!atomic_read(&de->count)) free_proc_entry(de); else de->deleted = 1; So, if you have some strange oops [1], and doesn't see this WARN_ON it means nothing. [1] try_module_get() of module which doesn't exist, two lines below should suffice, or not? Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- fs/proc/inode.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff -puN fs/proc/inode.c~proc-remove-pathetic-deleted-warn_on fs/proc/inode.c --- a/fs/proc/inode.c~proc-remove-pathetic-deleted-warn_on +++ a/fs/proc/inode.c @@ -146,8 +146,6 @@ struct inode *proc_get_inode(struct supe { struct inode * inode; - WARN_ON(de && de->deleted); - if (de != NULL && !try_module_get(de->owner)) goto out_mod; _