On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 08:53 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 13:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 00:02 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > > Hello Peter,
> > >
> > > > > What specifically is wrong with dev->sem ?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing really, other than that they use semaphores to avoid lockdep :-/
> > > >
> > > > I think I know how to annotate this, after Alan Stern explained all the
> > > > use cases, but I haven't come around to implementing it. Hope to do that
> > > > soonish.
> > >
> > > I was looking for an easy semaphore I could convert to a mutex, and I
> > > ran into one that was widely spread and interesting, and which seemed
> > > quite doable at first sight.
> > > So, I started working on it, but was forgotten this discussion, (until
> > > Daniel made me remember it this afternoon). So, I (stupid me ;-) )
> > > tried to convert dev->sem...
> > >
> > > After doing the monkey part of the conversion I can boot the kernel
> > > completely on X86 and ARM, and everything works fine, except after
> > > enabling lockdep, lockdep starts complaining...
> > >
> > > Is this the problem you were pointing at?
> >
> > Yeah, one of the interesting nestings :-)
>
> It must be the locking in __driver_attach(), taking dev->parent->sem
> then taking dev->sem .. Assuming those are different structures, why
> does lockdep trigger?
They aren't different, parent is a struct device again.
--
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]
