lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/7] driver-core : convert semaphore to mutex in struct class
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:39:33AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Dave Young wrote, On 01/18/2008 10:07 AM:
>
> > On Jan 18, 2008 4:23 PM, Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> 1) Using CLASS_NORMAL/CLASS_PARENT/CLASS_CHILD will be enough.
> >>> or
> >>> 2) Simply add SINGLE_LEVEL_NESTING in class_device_add and other
> >>> class_device functions because it is the only possible nest-lock place
> >>> as I know.
>
>
> Dave, after looking a bit at this it seems you could be "mostly" right
> with this 2). Maybe I've missed something (I didn't verify this yet), but
> it looks like +1 level (SINGLE_LEVEL_NESTING) could be needed in:
> class_device_add() (as you did), but probably also class_device_del() and
> class_device_destroy().

Yes, I think so too.

>
> ...But, there seems to be "little" problem, if there is used this recursion
> with: class_intf->add()/remove() in class_device_add()/del()?! Then Kay
> is right about possibility of deeper nesting. If this path is really used,
> and any of these class_device_* functions with locking are called, then
> this patch couldn't work like this. So, there is a question: how deep
> nesting is currently used here?

Currently I couldn't find such use in kernel source. IMO, drivers would not use it like this in the future because class_device will going away soon.

>
> Regards,
> Jarek P.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-21 02:19    [W:0.417 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site