lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] ACPI: reduce code size, clean up, fix validator message
Hi Ingo,

On 22/06/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> > > It complains about this only the 1st time, even though
> > > this same code sequence runs for every (subsequent) ACPI interrupt.
>
> that is because the lock validator turns itself off after the first
> complaint.
>
> > Yes, lockdep uses the callsite of spin_lock_init() to detect the
> > "type" of a lock.
> >
> > But the ACPI obfuscation layers use the same spin_lock_init() site to
> > initialise two not-the-same locks, so lockdep decides those two locks
> > are of the same "type" and gets confused.
> >
> > We had earlier decided to remove that ACPI code which kmallocs a
> > single spinlock. When that's done, lockdep will become unconfused.
> >
> > AFACIT it's all used for just two statically allocated locks anwyay.
>
> Ok, great! Find below the (tested) cleanup that also fixes the validator
> problem.

Problem fixed, thanks.

>
> (if ACPI wants to turn this into platform-independent code it should be
> a build-time and type-correct translation layer that understands things
> like DEFINE_SPINLOCK as well.)
>
> Ingo
>

Regards,
Michal

--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/wiki/)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-22 16:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site