Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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]
  Powered by Linux