Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:03:38 -0800 |
| |
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?
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/
| |