Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750711AbWINO6t (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:58:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750732AbWINO6t (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:58:49 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:38648 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711AbWINO6r (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:58:47 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=XjI8sdgdBQa7vMdIDlk1BW1+QhsZGOJ/J0sK5KhJiC9ysbP/TGrKZhrlX+W15r6Il2AG4/GREv5OV05u45KCpfKQUNkAb+fOkPOofP3rxLR4Tnxj52+WVTR81bDGofLMwVCEI7uxysYjUv3mp1psX0Bdki8XpYnYJMLCOhvnEN0= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:58:46 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Jiri Kosina" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings Cc: "Andrew Morton" , lkml , "Arjan van de Ven" , "Dave Jones" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200609132200.51342.dtor@insightbb.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1209 Lines: 29 On 9/14/06, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Can we add lock_class_key to the struct psmouse and use it to define > > per-device mutex class regardless of whether it is a child, grandchild > > or a parent? > > Hi Dmitry, > > what do you think about the patches below? I have used a slightly > different approach, as we also need to get rid of the spurious lockdep > warning in case of recursive call of serio_interrupt(), which can't be > handled well with lock subclass stored in struct psmouse. What do you > think about this? It shuts up the lockdep, and seems much cleaner to me. > 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). -- 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/