[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
On 02/10/2010 05:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Tejun Heo <> 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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-10 11:35    [W:0.090 / U:20.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site