Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750742AbWINPIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:08:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750743AbWINPIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:08:48 -0400 Received: from twin.jikos.cz ([213.151.79.26]:59290 "EHLO twin.jikos.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750742AbWINPIr (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:08:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:08:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Dmitry Torokhov cc: Andrew Morton , lkml , Arjan van de Ven , Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <200609132200.51342.dtor@insightbb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 903 Lines: 23 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? Thanks, -- JiKos. - 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/