On 9/14/06, Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Yes, this is much, much better. Could you please tell me if depth should
> be a true depth or just an unique number? The reason I am asking is that
> I hope to get rid of parent/child pointers in serio (they were
> introduced when driver core could not handle recursive addition/removing
> of devices on the same bus).
I am afraid you can't generate just any unique number to represent the
lock class, as the lockdep validator fails if the class number is higher
than MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES, which is by default 8.
Regarding the patches - should I submit them upstream, or will you?
Not yet ;) Is there a way to hide the depth in the spinlock/mutex
structure itself so that initialization code could do
spin_lock_init_nested() and spare the rest of the code from that
knowledge?
--
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]
