Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: lockdep input layer warnings. | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:53:32 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 11:49 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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?
nope but there is a function to make it unique, we could put that in the wrapper instead of mutex_init if that makes it less ugly..
- 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/
| |