Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:39:58 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links |
| |
On 02/10/2010 05:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> writes: > >> Hello, >> >> On 02/10/2010 11:08 AM, Américo Wang wrote: >>> This bug report is new for me. Recently we received lots of sysfs lockdep >>> warnings, I am working on a patch to fix all the bogus ones. >>> >>> However, this one is _not_ similar to the other cases, as you decribed. >>> This patch could fix the problem, but not a good fix, IMO. We need more >>> work in sysfs layer to fix this kind of things. I will take care of this. >> >> Can't we just give each s_active lock a separate class? Would that be >> too costly? > > When I asked the question earlier I was told that that locking classes > require static storage. Where would that static storage come from?
Maybe I'm glossly misunderstanding it but wouldn't embedding struct lockdep_map into sysfs_node as in work_struct do the trick?
Thanks.
-- tejun -- 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/
| |