Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:59:19 -0400 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: lockdep input layer warnings. |
| |
On 7/10/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > 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.. >
What function is that? BTW, I dont think that inlining will work because it is truly recursive scanario. The only driver in question in the backtrace provided is psmouse; there is only one call to ps2_init there.
-- Dmitry - 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/
| |