[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tejun Heo <> wrote:
> 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?

Not because it is expensive or not, it is because whether it hits the real

What I am doing is trying to add a "mutable" flag to sysfs files, those files
could be removed from kernel during some changes, e.g. cpu hotplug, I/O
scheduler switch. I add a new lockdep class for all of them, so that will be
safe for all cases like this.

If I understand this case correctly, it is not that different with the
rest cases
that I met, thus should be included into my fix.

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 04:15    [W:0.119 / U:3.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site