On 7/10/06, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> 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?
Of course there is a chance that lockdep is correct but I do not think so.
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
