Re: lockdep input layer warnings.

["Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

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/