lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links
From
Date
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> writes:

> 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?

In lockdep_init_map there is the following check:

/*
* Sanity check, the lock-class key must be persistent:
*/
if (!static_obj(key)) {
printk("BUG: key %p not in .data!\n", key);
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1);
return;
}

It needs playing with but I think we can embed something in struct
attribute, and simply disallow dynamically allocated instances of
struct attribute.

Eric
--
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: 2010-02-10 19:27    [W:0.093 / U:15.560 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site