lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: lockdep input layer warnings.
    On 7/10/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
    > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 16:29 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > >
    > > Well, you are right, the patch is in -rc1 and I see mutex_lock_nested
    > > in the backtrace but for some reason it is still not happy. Again,
    > > this is with pass-through Synaptics port and we first taking mutex of
    > > the child device and then (going through pass-through port) trying to
    > > take mutex of the parent.
    >
    > Ok it seems more drastic measures are needed; and a split of the
    > cmd_mutex class on a per driver basis. The easiest way to do that is to
    > inline the lock initialization (patch below) but to be honest I think
    > the patch is a bit ugly; I considered inlining the entire function
    > instead, any opinions on that?
    >

    It is ugly. Maybe we could have something like mutex_init_nolockdep()
    to annotate that lockdep is confused and make it ignore such locks?

    Of course there is a chance that lockdep is correct but I do not think so.

    --
    Dmitry
    -
    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: 2006-07-10 17:53    [W:0.038 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site